Amador County 2004-2009 housing element

Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
Amador County
2004­2009
Housing Element
( January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2009)
Adopted by the Amador County Board of Supervisors
May 10, 2005
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
Questions concerning this Housing Element may be directed to:
Augustine Planning Associates, Inc.
P. O. Box 3117
Sonora, CA 95370
( 209) 532­7376
landplan@ mlode. com
Table of Contents
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
i
Table of Contents Page
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ I­1
A. Requirements ........................................................................................................... I­1
B. Setting ..................................................................................................................... I­1
C. Purpose ................................................................................................................... I­4
II. Public Participation .................................................................................................. II­1
III. Executive Summary ................................................................................................. III­1
IV. Review of the 1992 Housing Element ..................................................................... IV­1
V. Analysis of Existing Conditions................................................................................ V­1
A. Population Characteristics............................................................................ V­1
1. Growth Trends ........................................................................................... V­1
2. Age & Gender of Population ...................................................................... V­6
3. Ethnicity of Population ............................................................................. V­11
4. Jobs/ Housing Balance............................................................................... V­15
B. Household Characteristics .......................................................................... V­25
1. Household Type, Size, Presence of Children............................................. V­25
2. Household Income & Housing Costs ........................................................ V­30
3. Overpayment ............................................................................................ V­34
4. Household Income Characteristics............................................................ V­40
5. Overcrowding........................................................................................... V­42
6. Group Quarters......................................................................................... V­43
C. Housing Characteristics .............................................................................. V­46
1. Housing Stock .......................................................................................... V­46
2. Housing Conditions .................................................................................. V­47
3. Occupancy & Vacancy Rates.................................................................... V­49
4. Owner/ Renter Occupation ........................................................................ V­50
VI. Special Needs Households........................................................................................ VI­1
A. Households 65 Years of Age and Older .......................................................... VI­1
B. Single Parent Heads of Households .............................................................. VI­12
C. The Disabled ................................................................................................ VI­15
D. Large Households......................................................................................... VI­18
E. The Homeless............................................................................................... VI­19
F. Farm Workers .............................................................................................. VI­21
G. Poverty......................................................................................................... VI­23
Table of Contents
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
ii
VII. Projected Needs....................................................................................................... VII­1
A. Regional ( County­wide)
Needs...................................................................... VII­1
B. Housing Needs by Income Group.................................................................. VII­1
VIII. Resource Inventory............................................................................................... VIII­1
A. Land Suitable for Residential Development ( Parcel Inventory).................... VIII­1
B. Assisted Developments/ At­Risk
Developments ......................................... VIII­22
C. Housing Programs ( Existing)..................................................................... VIII­23
D. Energy Conservation ................................................................................. VIII­24
IX. Housing Constraints ................................................................................................ IX­1
A. Governmental..................................................................................................... IX­1
1. General Plan................................................................................................... IX­1
2. Zoning .......................................................................................................... . IX­9
3. Permit and Processing Procedures ................................................................ IX­31
4. Constraints: Special Needs Housing/ Reasonable Accommodation............... IX­35
5. Building Codes & Enforcement.................................................................... IX­46
6. Process and Policy for Substandard Units and Rehabilitation........................ IX­49
7. Development Fees ........................................................................................ IX­49
8. Infrastructure................................................................................................ IX­52
B. Non­Governmental
Constraints ...................................................................... IX­57
X. Housing Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs ......................................... X­1
XI. Housing Implementation Plan­5
Year Schedule and Action Plan
Government Code Section 65583( c) ........................................................................ XI­1
Table of Contents
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
iii
XII. Appendices.............................................................................................................. XII­1
A. Potential Funding Sources ..................................................................................... A­1
B. Weatherization Programs........................................................................................ B­1
C. Cooperative Housing/ Co­Housing
.......................................................................... C­1
D. Second Unit Ordinance ......................................................................................... D­1
E. Fee Comparisons .................................................................................................... E­1
F. Health & Safety Code and Welfare and Institutions Code Citations......................... F­1
G. Development Standards for Residential Uses in Zoning Districts Allowing
Housing ................................................................................................................ G­1
H. Agricultural Land in Amador County .................................................................... H­1
I. Model Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance........................................................ I­1
XIII. Glossary................................................................................................. XIII/ Glossary­1
Introduction
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 I­1
4. Housing
I. Introduction
A. Requirements
Government Code Sections 65302 and 65580 through 65588 requires local jurisdictions to
prepare and implement a plan for providing affordable housing that:
! Identifies and analyzes existing and projected housing needs;
! Analyzes population and employment trends in relation to the locality= s existing and
projected housing needs for all income levels;
! Analyzes household characteristics and housing stock conditions;
! Inventories adequate sites for housing, including vacant sites and sites having the
potential for redevelopment with an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public
services to these sites;
! Analyzes governmental and non­governmental
constraints upon maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels;
! Analyzes special housing needs for the handicapped, elderly and persons in need of
emergency shelter;
! Analyzes opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential
development;
! Addresses preservation of subsidized housing units
B. Setting
Amador County was established in 1854 and is located in the Central Sierra. Elevations
range from 200’ in the western portion of the county to more than 9000’ in the eastern
portions of the county.
Introduction
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 I­2
Vicinity Map: Amador County
Amador County includes five incorporated cities:
· Amador City
· Ione
· Jackson
· Plymouth
· Sutter Creek
Introduction
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 I­3
Unincorporated Communities
in Amador County
Western Amador County Eastern Amador County
Buckhorn
Buena Vista
Drytown
Fiddletown
Martell
Pine Grove
Pioneer
River Pines
Sutter Hill
Kirkwood ( portion)
Introduction
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 I­4
C. Purpose
The purpose of this Housing Element is intended to meet the requirements of HCD= s 2004­2009
planning cycle and to reflect the housing needs of the unincorporated Amador County
population ( i. e., excluding the county’s five incorporated cities and including the county’s
unincorporated communities) pursuant to the 2000 Federal Census.
Public Participation
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 II­1
II. Public Participation
The following agencies and individuals contributed to the development of the 2004­2009
Housing Element:
Amador Affordable Housing Coalition
Attended first meeting of the coalition July 22, 2003 and a follow­up
meeting on
September 23, 2003. County representatives attended subsequent meetings of the
coalition. Members were urged to become involved in the preparation and review of the
housing element and to attend public hearings in support of programs embraced by the
coalition. Coalition assisted the county in identifying contacts for issues related to
special needs households, economic development and similar issues. The coalition
provided input regarding inclusionary ordinances ( pros and cons) and discussed the
county’s successes and failures in providing affordable housing.
Amador County Association of Realtors
Bob Wynn – Phone interview August 18, 2003. Provided current statistics on the average
value of homes being sold in the county, the volume of homes being sold in the county
and land sale data.
Amador County Building Department
Dawn Schaaf, Building Permit Technician; telephone interview August 18, 2003.
Discussed use of State Historic Building Code; areas in the county in which most permits
are issued; numbers of new homes constructed versus numbers of permits issued.
Amador County Commission on Aging
Thelma Clancy, phone interview, August 18, 2003. Topics included a discussion of
senior needs in Amador County related primarily to housing and transportation; the need
for tri­level
care facilities; expanded public transportation opportunities; avoiding the
creation of “ senior ghettos,” and the desire of seniors to live below the snow line.
Amador County Department of Health & Human Services
Tracy Russell, Director; telephone interview August 25, 2003. Referral to A­TCAA,
Beetle Barbour, for information.
Amador County Land Use Agency
Gary Clark, Director ( retired)– discussions throughout preparation of Housing Element
including past programs, anticipated future programs, county needs, county resources,
development constraints, optimal locations for future housing developments, and similar
Public Participation
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 II­2
topics. Provided outline of goals, policies and implementation programs and outline of
housing element update.
Amador County Land Use Agency ­Planning
Department ( Zoning Enforcement)
Steve Branco, August 18, 2003 phone interview. Discussed zoning enforcement in
Amador County. Primary housing­related
violations including illegal trailers.
Discussed enforcement officer familiarity with Health & Safety Code Section 17995.3 as
it pertains to the HCD definition of “ Rehabilitation.”
Amador County Transportation Commission
Charles Field, telephone interview August 16, 2003. Discussed lack of non­motorized
transportation facilities contained in Regional Transportation Plan and changes in the
RTP since its last publication.
Amador County Voices for Families
Amanda Bohl, meeting, San Andreas, May 15, 2003 with Beetle Barbour ( A­TCAA)
and
Ms. Bohl; review of Amador County Community Assessment 2000/ Amador County
Voices for Families and discussion of special needs populations deficiencies and
programs.
Amador County Waste Management
Dennis Grady, telephone interview August 16, 2003. Discussed locations of facilities,
capacity of facilities, county needs, and availability of recycling opportunities throughout
the county.
Amador Water Agency
Gene Mancebo, Chief Engineer, phone interview on August 16, 2003 and September 15,
2003. Discussed pending agency plans to expand water and wastewater service and the
pending needs of the agency necessary to facilitate expansion of infrastructure to serve
housing; discussed locations where infrastructure can be readily and economically
accessed by housing developments versus locations where infrastructure expansion
would be more costly; discussed current fees and anticipated fees. Discussed
infrastructure funding.
Amador Economic Development Corporation
Ron Mittelbrunn, Executive Director, Phone interview September 9, 2003. Discussed
current efforts by the EDC to attract living wage jobs to the county; specific projects and
approaches which could be used to attract living wage jobs; economic development
statistics applicable to the county. Provided Amador County Business Retention,
Expansion and Attraction Study, Final Report – 1997 ( Applied Development
Public Participation
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 II­3
Economics). Discussed Sierra Business Council Sierra Nevada Wealth Index.
Amador Regional Rapid Transit
Patrick Ireland, telephone interview August 16, 2003. Discussed new transit
development plan.
Amador Senior Services, Inc.
Phone interview September 16, 2003, with Fred Joyce. Discussed activities and support
services available at the center and funding for the center.
Amador­Tuolumne
Community Action Agency­Shelter
Program
Margaret “ Beetle” Barbour, interview April 30, 2003 and June 12, 2003­Shelter
Program
Manager. Topics: Homeless, chronically mentally ill, single mothers, victims of
domestic violence, formation of the Amador Affordable Housing Coalition.
Amador­Tuolumne
Community Action Agency – Weatherization Program
Pete Grahmbeek, Director, Weatherization Program. Phone interview September 15,
2003; discussed programs, volume of applicants for assistance, methods used to identify
qualified households, outlook for future funding.
Area 12 Agency on Aging
Torie Carlson, Planner; August 18, 2003, phone interview. Discussed Senior Needs
Assessment prepared by this agency and requested copy for inclusion in the Housing
Element.
Central Sierra Planning Council ( CSPC)
The county participated, at the invitation of Executive Director Larry Busby, in the April
1, 2003, meeting with the California Department of Housing and Community
Development in conjunction with the preparation of the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation ( RHNA) Plan by the Central Sierra Planning Council. The county attended
the May 7, 2003, CSPC board meeting to urge board members to adopt the draft RHNA.
CSPC also provided updates on Section 8 vouchers in Amador County and provided
input on the potential for increasing the allocation in that county. Marilyn Dungan of
CSPC provided an overview of the county’s First­Time
Homebuyer’s Program which
began in 2002 and identified potential constraints related to the implementation of this
program.
Habitat for Humanity
Frank Meyer, Calaveras County Habitat for Humanity, phone interview September 16,
2003. There are no plans to expand to Amador County at this time.
Public Participation
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 II­4
City of Jackson Planning Department
Mike Daly, City Manager, phone interview September 16, 2003. Discussed status of
affordable housing projects in the City of Jackson, status of the city’s inclusionary
ordinance, and status of pending projects.
Valley Mountain Regional Center ( VMRC)
Jackie Maier, phone interview, September 16, 2003. Discussed current level of service
and service needs for developmentally disabled in Amador County.
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­1
III. Executive Summary
The Atypical@ Amador County resident has a median age of 42.7 years old, is female, earns a
median income for a family of four of $ 56,000, is living in a single­family
residential
structure built in 1977 and is one of 19,919 individuals residing within the unincorporated
area of the county in the year 2000. To meet the needs of this “ typical” Amador County
resident and all other residents of the unincorporated county, now and in the future, the
county has prepared this 2004­2009
Housing Element.
Amador County anticipates that 946 residential units will be necessary to fill the County’s
housing needs for the planning period of 2004 to 2009. Three hundred ninety­one
of these
units are needed to house low and very low income households. The Central Sierra Planning
Council Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan estimates that Amador County will need
the following number of housing units through July 1, 2009:
Projected Housing Needs
By Income Group
Amador County 2001­2009
Median Family Income ( Family of 4): $ 51,226
Median Household Income: $ 42,280
Income Group
( Gross Annual Wage­Family
of 4)
New Units Needed
By 2009/ a/
Very low
($ 28,000­$
44,799)
231
Low
($ 44,800­$
55,999)
160
Moderate
($ 56,000 – $ 67,199)
177
Above Moderate
($ 67,200 and above)
378
Total 946
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­2
Public Participation
The draft housing element was produced with input from the following agencies and
organizations:
· Amador Affordable Housing Coalition
· Amador County Association of Realtors
· Amador County Building Department
· Amador County Commission On Aging
· Amador County Department of Health & Human Services
· Amador County Land Use Agency
· Amador County Transportation Commission
· Amador County Voices for Families
· Amador County Waste Management
· Amador Water Agency
· Amador Economic Development Corporation
· Amador Regional Rapid Transit
· Amador Senior Services, Inc. ( Senior Center)
· Amador­Tuolumne
Community Action Agency
· Area 12 Agency on Aging
· Central Sierra Planning Council
· Habitat for Humanity
· City of Jackson Planning Department
· Valley Mountain Regional Center
Additional input shall be gathered throughout the public review process for this element.
1992 Housing Element
Many of the programs identified in the 1992 Housing Element were unfulfilled due largely to
economic ups and downs. High volumes of building permits followed by a drop in the
economy thwarted the best efforts of the county to provide substantial inroads towards
meeting its housing goals.
Significant among the accomplishments of the county during the planning period were:
· The rezoning of several strategically located vacant parcels for multi­family
residential use
· The consolidation of multiple permitting agencies into a single Land Use Agency
thereby facilitating permit processing
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­3
Existing Conditions
Demographics
Growth Rate
The county should expect a growth rate of approximately 2% through 2009 with a projected
increase in the population of the unincorporated county from 20,500 to 23,953.
Age
The county’s median age of 42.7 is 9.1 years older than the median age for the state.
Seniors
Amador County has the highest percentage of its total population aged 65 years of age or
older ( 18%) in the region. Amador County’s senior population composes a larger percentage
of the overall county population than Alpine, Calaveras, El Dorado, Mariposa, Mono, Placer
or Tuolumne Counties.
Ethnicity
Statistics indicate that one in ten Amador County residents will be Hispanic by the year 2005.
Jobs/ Housing Balance
The gap between wages and housing costs and availability continues to widen. To afford a
three­bedroom
housing unit working 40 hours per week, an individual would have to be paid
at least $ 16.85 per hour without paid holidays or sick leave.
Household Characteristics
Two types of households exist: family households ( with individuals who are related to the
head of the household) and non­family
households ( including persons living alone or with
unrelated individuals).
The average size of families is higher than the county average in and around the cities of Ione
and Plymouth. This is largely due to the presence of Hispanic or Latino populations
associated with the Mule Creek Prison ( Ione) and farm workers seeking employment in the
expanding wine grape industry ( in and around Plymouth).
The number of female­single­parent
households more than doubled between 1990 and 2000.
The percentage of married couples in the county has declined by 6%.
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­4
Housing Characteristics
Housing Costs
Housing costs continue to increase without a corresponding increase in the county’s median
wage. The average sale price of a two bedroom home in Amador County in 2002 was
$ 164,878. The median income for a family of three will purchase a home of approximately
$ 126,000, leaving an affordability gap of approximately $ 38,100.
Seventy­three
percent of homeowners paying more than 30% of their gross income ( i. e.,
overpaying for housing) are living in the unincorporated area of the county.
The majority of renters overpaying are concentrated in the incorporated cities of the county.
Household Income Characteristics
The largest concentration of very low income households occurs in and around Jackson, Ione
and Plymouth.
Overcrowding
Overcrowded households have increased nearly 20% since 1990.
Housing Stock
1.5% of the county’s housing units are classified as substantially deteriorated or dilapidated.
The median year of construction for a structure in Amador County is 1977. Amador City has
the oldest median for its structures— the median year of construction there is 1939.
Occupancy/ Owners versus Renters
The vacancy rate for homes in the county is virtually unchanged since 1990. Owners
continue to outnumber renters by a ratio of nearly 3: 1.
Special Needs Households
Seniors
Amador County has the highest percentage of its total population aged 65 years of age or
older ( 18%) in the region.
Single parent heads of households
The majority of single­parent
households living below the poverty level reside in the
unincorporated area of the county.
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­5
Disabled
The majority of those disabled in the county have a physical disability. The next most
common disabilities in the county are those which interfere with employment and disabilities
which prevent individuals from leaving their homes.
Large Households
Ione and Plymouth have the highest concentration of large households. This is attributed to
concentrations of ethnic populations which traditionally have more persons within a
household than the county average.
Homeless
One of the primary causes of homelessness is domestic violence. While the county’s calls
for assistance are consistently lower than the state’s; the arrest rate for domestic violence in
the county is comparable to California’s.
Farm workers
Farm worker populations are expected to increase in the county with corresponding increases
in the county’s standing acreage in vineyards.
Poverty
While the county has a smaller percentage of its population living in poverty than does the
state; pockets of poverty clearly exist throughout the county.
Resources Inventory
Land Availability
Existing vacant and under­developed
land zoned for multi­family
use in the unincorporated
area of the county potentially could support 1,117 residential units at the existing county
density allowance of 18 units per acre. The element proposes an increase in the 18 unit/ acre
density ( to 25 units per acre) which would result in a corresponding increase in the potential
number of housing units that the county could support.
At­Risk
Units
The unincorporated county has no subsidized housing units ( those built with state or federal
assistance).
Existing Housing Programs
In addition to ongoing rental assistance ( Section 8 vouchers), the county began a first­time
home buyer program in 2002.
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­6
Energy Conservation
The Amador­Tuolumne
Community Action Agency continues to be the primary source of
funds used to assist low­income
households in reducing their energy bills.
The Amador County Transportation Commission is currently in the process of updating the
county’s regional transportation plan. Support for non­motorized
transportation facilities
( e. g., bike paths and sidewalks) over short distances and linking together homes, schools and
shopping could assist low­income
households in further reducing their energy bills.
Constraints
The removal of land use constraints ( e. g., requirements for special permits for various uses)
is one of the most economical and efficient means by which county government can assist in
the development of affordable housing. This element places an emphasis on removing
governmental constraints as necessary to encourage the construction of affordable housing
throughout the county.
Many constraints are outside of the direct control of county government. The expansion of
water and wastewater facilities sufficient to serve development continues to be one of the
primary deterrents to the development of affordable housing.
Implementation Programs: Highlights
A few of the unique programs proposed in this element to encourage the provision of
affordable housing in the county include:
· Designating land within the existing spheres of influence of cities to Special
Planning­Residential
thereby increasing the availability of land in close proximity to
water and wastewater facilities necessary for residential construction.
· Increasing the maximum density for multiple family land uses from 18 units per acre
to 25 units per acre.
· Pursuing establishment of a housing task force for the purpose of consolidating all of
the jurisdictions in the county under a single, coordinated plan for providing
affordable housing.
· Consideration of Cooperative Housing Developments ( See Appendix C).
· Preparation of a Business Attraction/ Expansion Study aimed at encouraging moderate
wage jobs.
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­7
· Evaluating the potential benefits of a redevelopment agency in encouraging economic
growth in certain portions of the county.
· Consideration of amendments to the zoning code to facilitate the provision of child
care facilities and emergency and transitional shelters.
· Encouraging the development of “ tri­level”
communities for seniors ( i. e.,
communities providing alternative levels of assisted living from fully independent
living to drop­in
assistance and including full nursing care alternatives) to allow
seniors to remain with or near their spouses without undertaking major moves and life
changes throughout their lives.
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­8
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­1
IV. Review of the 1992 Housing Element
The 1992 Amador County Housing Element was adopted on January 19, 1993, by the
Amador County Board of Supervisors. The element identified numerous programs to
address the housing needs of Amador County. An analysis of those programs follows:
Affordable Housing Task Force Committee ( AHTFC)
The 1992 element called for the formation of an affordable housing task force committee to
identify and contact potential developers of affordable housing to determine how the county
could best assist them in developing low cost housing.
This program was not implemented. A significant increase in building permit volume began
in 1992 resulting in a reorganization of county departments to handle the increased work
load. This was followed by a sharp economic downturn in which hiring freezes and layoffs
occurred in county departments. In short, lack of staff and lack of funding eliminated the
potential for this program to proceed.
Identifying Constraints
The AHTFC was charged with identifying constraints to the development of affordable
housing and preparing a report to the Board of Supervisors and five City Councils with
recommendations for removing constraints.
The AHTFC was charged with identifying sites in the County appropriate for development of
low cost housing and identifying agencies or developers with the potential and resources to
work with the county to development and maintain housing.
As noted previously, the AHTFC was not formed. However, the Planning Department, in
cooperation with the landowner, took the initiative to rezone and actively market a large,
multi­family
parcel in a prime location in the county. All environmental documentation was
completed for the property. Building permits were the only entitlement necessary from the
county for a developer to commence constructing affordable housing at a density of 18 units
per acre. Unfortunately, potential developers of the site found that other cities and counties
were more competitive than Amador County in obtaining state and federal funding assistance
for the construction of affordable housing projects.
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­2
Review Impact Fees
The AHTFC was charged with reviewing the county’s impact mitigation fees and identifying
those which could be waived for housing projects serving low and moderate income
households. The Board of Supervisors would respond with a draft ordinance proposing the
waiver of certain impact fees.
In reviewing potential mitigation fees, the Planning Department determined that existing fees
were minimal— especially in comparison to other jurisdictions. More importantly, most
mitigation fees are not under the control of the county ( e. g., water fees, traffic impact
mitigation fees). As a result, it was determined that implementation of this program would
not result in a tangible incentive to attract affordable housing to the county.
Second Dwelling Units
The 1992 Housing Element called for reconsideration of Board policy relative to allowing
second dwelling units on a single parcel of land.
The county adopted major changes to its second dwelling unit policy with the adoption of
ordinances in 1997, 2000, and 2001. The new standards for second dwellings are contained
in the Amador County Zoning Code, Section 19.48.120 ( see Appendix D). In brief, second
unit regulations in the county are consistent with those required under legislation which
became effective in January and July, 2003.
Jobs/ Housing Balance
The Planning Department was charged with drafting an ordinance requiring all new
commercial, industrial and large residential development projects to address the jobs/ housing
balance prior to/ in conjunction with project approvals.
This program was not implemented through the adoption of an ordinance. This program was
instead implemented through the application of the California Environmental Quality Act.
During the 1992 planning cycle; the issue of the county’s jobs and housing balance came to
the forefront when the county lost its largest employer ( the Georgia­Pacific
Mill employing
600­800
employees). Since the closure of the mill, located in Martell, Amador County and
the Amador County Economic Development Corporation have been actively working with
landowners to “ redevelop” the former mill site for the economic benefit of the county. The
location of housing for employees on lands adjacent to the site has become a primary
consideration in future plans for the site.
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­3
Streamlined Permitting Process
The County Technical Advisory Committee was directed to develop a streamlined permit
procedure to reduce processing time and increase processing efficiency.
Due to the low volume of new development applications received in the county, applications
are processed quickly in Amador County. The implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) was identified as the primary contributor to time­constraints
in the planning process. Therefore, during the planning period, the Planning
Department adopted local county CEQA guidelines to assist in facilitating the
implementation of CEQA in Amador County.
In addition, in 1994, the county undertook a reorganization of county departments. The
newly­formed
Amador County Land Use Agency consolidated multiple permit­issuing
agencies ( Environmental Health, Building and Planning) under a single entity which has
assisted in coordinated permit reviews and in streamlining the permitting process.
Quantified Objectives
The 1992 Housing Element adopted the following objectives and charged that all county
departments should assist the county and individuals in meeting these objectives by July,
1997, within the realm of their appointed duties:
U Construct 1,829 new housing units in the unincorporated county
U 714 of the 1,829 units should be occupied by low and very low income
families
U Rehabilitate 70 housing units for low and very low income households
U Conserve 9 housing units for low and very low income households
The Planning Department was assigned the duty of reporting annually to the planning
commission on the county’s progress in meeting its housing goals pursuant to the element by
monitoring census data, building permits and population estimates.
The County= s Building Department reports that 889 building permits were issued for single­family
dwellings during the five­year
planning period. Historically, the number of building
permits issued for new single­family
homes is as follows:
1980­1985:
1,138
1986­1991:
1,439 ( 1,347)
1992­1997:
889
1997­2002:
746
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­4
Through 1986, the county continued to issue building permits for some of the county’s
incorporated cities. As a result, statistics pertaining to total permits issued for new homes in
the unincorporated county through 1986 are inflated. Removing 1986 statistics from 1986­1991
totals reveals that a minimum of 1,255 building permits for new single­family
homes
were issued within the unincorporated county between 1986 and 1991. Assuming that
approximately 50% of permits issued for new single­family
homes in 1986 were located in
the unincorporated county, it is projected that a total of 1,347 building permits were issued
for new single­family
residents in the unincorporated county between 1986 and 1991— by far
the largest increase in single­family
residential growth in the unincorporated county in the
past twenty years.
Given historical trends indicating slower growth than projected in the 1992 Housing
Element, it is clear that the 1992 Element goal of adding 1,829 new housing units in the
unincorporated county was based on expectations of unprecedented population and
economic growth which did not materialize. Therefore, the adopted objectives were overly
aggressive.
CDBG Housing Rehab Program/ Housing Conditions Survey
The County shall continue to seek assistance from the Central Sierra Planning Council
toward expanding the County’s CDBG housing rehab program and shall continue to maintain
the CDBG­funded
housing rehab account. The County shall have a housing condition survey
conducted to identify housing in need of rehabilitation.
The county currently has $ 87,836.25 ( 9/ 15/ 03) in CDBG re­use
funds which could be made
available for rehabilitations. However, a formal rehabilitation program is not currently in
effect in the county. The county began a first­time
homebuyers program in 2002 with CDBG
funding and has already closed one loan with four pending. The Central Sierra Planning
Council notes that the high cost of housing and limited housing stock on the market is
creating challenges for the successful implementation of the first­time
homebuyers program.
CDBG Funds for Acquiring Sites/ Subsidizing Low Cost Housing
The County shall investigate the feasibility of obtaining CDBG grants for acquiring sites or
otherwise subsidizing low cost housing.
This program was not implemented. The Planning Department has determined that permit
fees are low and development standards are not a deterrent to the development of affordable
housing ( See Constraints Analysis, Section IX, in this document). As discussed above, when
the county took the initiative to rezone and actively market a large, multi­family
parcel in a
prime location in the county, conducted all environmental reviews and required only
building permits for the construction of affordable housing at a density of 18 units per acre,
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­5
potential developers found that they were unable to secure necessary funding­­other
cities
and counties were more competitive than Amador County in obtaining state and federal
funding assistance for the construction of affordable housing projects.
Density Bonuses
Density bonuses shall be granted to developments with 20% low income units or 10% very
low income units or 50% senior units pursuant to Government Code Section 65915.
A lack of development applications has limited opportunities for granting density bonuses in
Amador County. A single subdivision applied for the bonus, was granted a density bonus,
and then found that it could not afford the project due to on­site
sewage disposal costs. The
project was down­sized
and re­structured
to serve moderate income households.
Infrastructure costs continue to be a significant roadblock to the development of affordable
housing in Amador County and are addressed in this 2004 Update.
Mitigation for Impacts of Commercial, Industrial, Residential
The county may require larger commercial industrial or residential projects to mitigate
impacts on the affordable housing market by including affordable housing in the project;
paying affordable housing impact fees; or a combination of the two.
This program was not implemented. A lack of applications for development projects
rendered implementation of this program moot.
Review/ Update General Plan
Designate High Density Land Uses ( Policy)
Continue to designate appropriate sites on the Amador County Land Use Element Land Use
Map for high density multi­family
residential projects.
The Planning Department shall review the General Plan Land Use Element and County
Zoning Ordinance and recommend appropriate land use designation/ zones in which to allow
emergency shelters and transitional housing in the county. The Board shall adopt
amendments as determined appropriate to allow said uses.
These two programs were implemented in conjunction with the county’s 1994 update of the
General Plan Land Use Plan which divided the county into eight study areas and increased
the amount of multi­family
land available for development of affordable housing.
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­6
Priority to Existing County Residents ( Policy)
Provide first priority for occupancy of government assisted low cost housing to households
who can prove existing county residency.
This policy was not implemented and has been eliminated as potentially discriminatory.
Waive Building and Inspection Fees ( Policy)
Waive building permit and inspection fees for the rehabilitation of substandard units
occupied by low income senior citizens.
No development projects qualifying for this waiver were submitted during the planning
period ( i. e., there were no building permit applications for qualifying rehabilitations,
therefore, no waivers were granted).
Coordination with Cities ( Policy)
Work with the county’s incorporated cities toward mutual attainment of regional housing
needs.
In preparation for the preparation of the update of this Housing Element; the cities and
county formed a joint task force in 2002 to discuss city/ county housing issues. City
managers, City planners, and Land Use Agency personnel discussed the potential for
preparing a consolidated/ joint housing element for all of incorporated and unincorporated
Amador County. This task force was prompted by input from Central Sierra Planning
Council that it would be unable to prepare the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the
region. When CSPC determined that it would, after all, be able to produce the document, the
task force was abandoned. Amador County would support re­forming
the joint task force
should cities indicate a willingness to pursue a regional housing element.
Funding Water/ Sewer System Improvement Projects
The Board of Supervisors and County Water Resources Department, in coordination with the
Amador Water Agency, shall continue to pursue funding sources to finance match money
needed to obtain grants for water and sewer system improvements.
The entities have continued to pursue funding for various water and wastewater improvement
projects. Projects have included system upgrades in Fiddletown and River Pines.
Fair Housing Law – Public Education
The Amador County Planning Department and Building Department shall have available
printed information on fair housing laws for distribution to the public upon request.
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­7
This program was implemented. Fair Housing Laws are available for public review at the
county land use agency.
Referral of Housing Complaints to the Fair Housing Authority for Amador County
The county shall continue to refer housing complaints to the Amador­Tuolumne
Community
Action Agency— the Fair Housing Authority for Amador County.
There were no housing complaints received during the planning period.
Maintain Consistency Between the Housing Element and Other General Plan Elements
Upon final adoption of the 1992 Housing Element and of any future amendments to the
element, the Amador County Planning Director shall review other elements for consistency
and recommend amendments as necessary to maintain consistency.
This legal mandate was implementing during the preparation of the 1994 update of the Land
Use Element of the General Plan. Upon adoption of this 2004 Update, any general plan
amendments necessary for consistency shall be adopted.
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­8
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­1
V. Analysis of Existing Conditions
A. Population Characteristics
1. Growth Trends
Historical Population Growth 1854­2000
Amador County ( Established 1854)
Change from Year Population Preceding Census Year
# Persons 10 Yr.
% Change
Gross Annual
Growth Rate
1854 n/ a ­­­­­­1860
10,930 ­­­­­­1870
9,582 ­1,348
­12.3%
­1.2%
1880 11,384 + 1,802 + 18.8% 1.9%
1890 10,320 ­1,064
­9.3%
­0.9%
1900 11,116 + 796 + 7.7% 0.8%
1910 9,086 ­2,030
­18.3%
­1.8%
1920 7,793 ­1,293
­14.2%
­1.4%
1930 8,494 + 701 + 9.0% 0.9%
1940 8,973 + 479 + 5.6% 0.6%
1950 9,151 + 178 + 2.0% 0.2%
1960 9,990 + 839 + 9.2% 0.9%
1970 11,821 + 1,831 + 18.3% 1.8%
1980 19,314 + 7,493 + 63.4% 6.3%
1990 30,039 + 10,725 + 55.5% 5.6%
2000 35,100 + 5,061 + 16.8% 1.7%
2002 36,050 + 950 ­­2003
36,500 + 450 ­­1.2%
Source: Historical Census Populations of Places, Towns and Cities in California, 1850­1990;
California
Department of Finance
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­2
County/ City Comparison
The 15,181 persons living in the county’s incorporated cities are dispersed as follows:
Population in
Incorporated Cities in Amador County
City Population ( 2000)
Amador 201
Ione 7214/ a/
Jackson 4467
Plymouth 957
Sutter Creek 2342
Total Incorporated Population 15,181
/ a/ Population includes 3,650 inmates at Mule Creek Prison, built in 1985
► Unincorporated
19,919 individuals, or 56.7% of
Amador County’s Residents live in
the unincorporated county
► Incorporated
15,181 individuals, or 43.3%, live
within the county’s incorporated
cities
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­3
Analysis
As indicated in the preceding tables, population growth in the county has fluctuated widely
from a ­1.8%
annual percentage decline to a 6.3% annual percentage increase. The State
Department of Finance is projecting an annual growth rate of 2.9% countywide based on an
increase in the number of single­family
residential homes added to the county over the past
two years.
However, based on historical growth trends, including the most recent 1.7% annual growth
rate recorded for the county between 1990 and 2000; it is unlikely that the annual growth rate
for the unincorporated county will reach 2.9%.
This conclusion is supported by 1990­2000
population growth statistics for the incorporated
cities. These statistics clearly illustrate that population growth for Amador County is
occurring primarily in its incorporated cities­­in
particular, in the cities of Plymouth and
Sutter Creek.
Population Change 1990­2000
Amador County
Jurisdiction 1990
Population
2000
Population
Numeric
Change
Percent
Change
Annual
Percent
Change
Amador City 196 196 0 0.0 0.0
Ione 6,516 7,129 613 9.4 0.9
Jackson 3,545 3,989 444 12.5 1.3
Plymouth 811 980 169 20.8 2.1
Sutter Creek 1,835 2,303 468 25.5 2.6
Unincorporated 17,136 20,503 3,367 19.6 2.0
Amador County Total 30,039 35,100 5061 16.8 1.7
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­4
Population Change 2002­2003
Amador County
Jurisdiction 2002
Population
2003
Population
Numeric
Change
Annual Percent
Change
Amador City 210 210 0 0.0
Ione 7,450 7,450 0 0.0
Jackson 4,020 4,060 40 1.0
Plymouth 1,030 1,070 40 3.9
Sutter Creek 2,370 2,440 70 3.0
Unincorporated 20,970 21,270 300 1.4
Amador County Total 36,050 36,500 450 1.2
As indicated in the preceding tables, the cities of Plymouth and Sutter Creek are expected to
lead the county in population growth through the planning period.
► The unincorporated county is expected to realize a 2% annual
growth rate through 2009 in comparison to the overall county annual
growth rate of 2.9%.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­5
Projected Population Growth
Amador County: 2005 – 2020
Year
Incorporated +
Unincorporated
County/ a/
Unincorporated
County
Low Projection
( 1.7%)
Unincorporated
County
Moderate Projection
( 2.0%)
Unincorporated
County
High Projection
( 2.9%)
2004 ­­21,632
21,696 21,887
2005 35,400 22,000 22,129 22,522
2006 22,374 22,572 23,175
2007 22,754 23,023 23,847
2008 23,143 23,483 24,539
2009 37,235 23,536 23,953 25,251
2010 37,600 23,936 24,432 25,983
2015 40,300 25,971 26,875 29,751
2020 41,300 28,178 29,563 34,065
/ a/ California Department of Finance Projections
► The unincorporated county population is projected to be between
23,536 and 25,251 in 2009 for the purposes of this element.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­6
2. Age and Gender of Population
Population by Age Group
Amador County 2000 ­Incorporated
+ Unincorporated
Median Age: 42.7 Years Old
Age of Population Population
Totals
% of Population
Under 5 1,478 4.2
5­9
1,848 5.3
10­14
2,189 6.2
15­19
2,689 7.7
Subtotal 0­19
8,204 23.4
20­24
1,457 4.2
25­34
3,486 9.9
35­44
5,707 16.2
Subtotal 20­44
10,650 30.3
45­54
5,678 16.2
55­59
2,204 6.3
60­64
2,035 5.8
Subtotal 45­64
9,917 28.3
65­74
3,453 9.8
75­84
2,231 6.4
85 and Over 645 1.8
Subtotal 65+ 6,329 18.0
Totals 35,100 100
U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000 Summary file
Amador County, DP­1
Profile of General Demographic Characteristics
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­7
County/ City/ State Comparison – Median Age
In comparison to the total county population’s median age of 42.7 years old, the median ages
of the residents within the county’s incorporated areas are:
City Median Age
Amador 41.5
Ione 34.3
Jackson 46.6
Plymouth 39.1
Sutter Creek 45.3
The comparatively low median age of individuals living in Ione is attributed to the presence
of a state prison in that city. The median age for the state is 33.6 years.
► The county’s median age of 42.7 years is 9.1 years older than the
state median.
► The county’s 42.7 year median age is between 3.9 and 8.4 years older
than the median age of residents in the incorporated county.
County/ City/ State/ Regional Comparisons: 65 Years of Age and Older
Households with One or More
Individuals 65 Years of Age or Older
Jurisdiction Total Households with
One or more resident 65
years of age or older
% of Total Households
County ( unincorporated) 2,802 33%
Amador City 23 27%
Ione City 277 26%
Jackson City 698 40%
Plymouth City 128 33%
Sutter Creek City 384 37%
Total 4,312
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­8
18% of the Amador County’s total population is age 65 years or older. Comparatively,
10.6% of California’s population and 12.4% of the U. S. population is 65 years of age or
older. In neighboring counties, the population 65 years of age and older is as follows:
Alpine 6.8%
Calaveras 14.0%
El Dorado 9.8%
Mariposa 14.9%
Mono 4.7%
Placer 8.2%
Tuolumne 14.7%
► Amador County has the highest percentage ( 18%) of its total
population aged 65 years of age or older in the region.
This emphasizes the necessity for addressing the needs of seniors in this housing element.
Section V of this element describes those needs and proposals for filling them.
County/ City/ State/ Regional Comparisons: Under 18 Years of Age
Households with Individuals 18 Years of Age and Younger
Jurisdiction Total Households with
One or more resident 18
years of age or younger
% of Total Households
County ( unincorporated) 2,370 28%
Amador City 21 25%
Ione City 412 38%
Jackson City 463 27%
Plymouth City 139 35%
Sutter Creek City 286 28%
Total 3,691
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­9
20.5% of Amador County’s total population is under 18 years of age. This is similar to the
27.3% of California’s population and 25.7% of the U. S. population under 18 years of age. In
neighboring counties, the population under 18 years of age ranges from a low of 16.4% in
Placer County to a high of 26% in El Dorado County:
Alpine 24.3%
Calaveras 22.8%
El Dorado 26%
Mariposa 21.6%
Mono 22.2%
Placer 16.4%
Tuolumne 20.7%
► Amador County’s population under the age of 18 is comparable to
that of the state and neighboring counties.
“ Amador County’s population is getting older. The largest
group, ages 41­50,
grew 46% between 1990 and 2000. Those
under age 10 actually decreased in the same period by 10.2%.
The median age in the county increased from 39 in 1990 to 43
in 2000 ( compared to an increase in the median age for the
state from 31.3 to 33.6)”
Amador County Voices for Families,
Amador County Community Assessment, 2000
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­10
Population By Gender
Amador County, 2000
Incorporated +
Unincorporated County
Gender Unincorporated County
Total % Total Total % Total
Male 19,328 55% 9,877 49.6%
Female 15,772 45% 10,042 50.4%
Total 35,100 100% 19,919 100%
U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000 Summary file –
Amador County, DP­1
Profile of General Demographic Characteristics
County/ City/ State Comparisons: Gender
As indicated in the preceding table, the balance between male and female countywide is
weighted towards the male population. This is due to the presence of Mule Creek Prison in
Ione with its large male population of inmates.
Within the unincorporated county, the gender balance more closely mimics that of the state
population of 50.2% female and 49.8% male.
► The unincorporated county has a gender balance nearly identical to
that of the state.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­11
3. Ethnicity of Population
Population By Ethnicity
Amador County 1990­2000
Unincorporated County
Race
Total 2000
Unincorporated
Population
% of Total 2000
Unincorporated
Population
White 18,625 93.5
Black or African American 40 0.2
American Indian and Alaska
Native
269 1.3
Asian 116 0.6
Native Hawaiian
Other Pacific Islander
0 0.0
Other Race 388 1.9
Two or more Races 488 2.4
Total/ a/, / b/ 19,926 99.9
/ a/ May not total 100% due to rounding
/ b/ Differs from county population total due to differences in sampling methods
U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000; Amador County, QT­PL.
Race, Hispanic or Latino and Age 2000;
Census 2000 Redistricting Data
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­12
Population By Ethnicity
Amador County 1990­2000
( Incorporated Plus Unincorporated County)
Race/ a/ Total of 1990
Population
% of 1990
Population
Total of 2000
Population
% of 2000
Population
% Change
1990­2000
White 26,894 89.5% 30,193 86.0% ­3.5%
Black or African
American
1,682 5.6% 1,185 3.4% ­2.2%
American Indian
and Alaska Native
493 1.6% 598 1.7% + 0.1%
Asian,
Native Hawaiian
Other Pacific
Islander
218 0.7% 340 1.0% + 0.3%
Other Race 752 2.5% 1,702 4.8% + 2.3%
Two or more
Races
1,052 3.0% ­­Total/
b/ 30,039 99.9 35,100 99.9
U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000; Amador County, QT­PL.
Race, Hispanic or Latino and Age 2000;
Census 2000 Redistricting Data
/ a/ Single race unless otherwise specified
/ b/ May not equal 100% due to rounding
Hispanic or Latino Population: Single or Multiple Races
Amador County 1990­2000
( Incorporated Plus Unincorporated County)
1990 Census 2000 Census
Total % Population Total % Population
% Change
1990­2000
2,520 8.4% 3,104 8.8% ­2.0%
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­13
County/ City Comparisons
Populations within the county’s incorporated cities increase the ethnic diversity of the county
as illustrated by the following statistics:
· Unincorporated county population = 93.5% white
· Incorporated county population = 76.2% white
· Incorporated + Unincorporated county population = 86.0% white
In comparison, 59.5% of California’s population is classified as white and 32.4% of the
population is reported as Hispanic or Latino.
6.4% ( 1,274 individuals) of residents in the unincorporated county are Hispanic or Latino. In
contrast, 8.8% of the countywide population is Hispanic or Latino.
The most ethnically diverse city within Amador County is Ione where the ethnicity of the
population is attributed to the presence of the Mule Creek Prison.
Race/ Ethnicity of Population
Comparison of City of Ione and Amador County
Race/ Ethnicity % Ione
Population
% Total County
Population
White Alone 58.4% 86.0%
Black/ African American 15.6% 3.4%
American Indian/ Alaska Native 3.3% 1.7%
Asian/ Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 2.8% 1.0%
Other Race 16.4% 4.8%
Two or More Races 3.5% 3.0%
Hispanic or Latino 19.6% 8.8%
The Hispanic or Latino population of Amador County is identified by the California
Department of Finance as the population sector expected to see the greatest increase in the
county during the planning period.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­14
► The population of the unincorporated county is 93.5% white and
6.6% Hispanic or Latino in contrast to the state’s population which
is 59.5% white and 32.4% Hispanic or Latino.
► By the year 2005, at least one in ten Amador County residents will be
Hispanic. California Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit
Analysis
In addition to the county’s identified need to provide increased opportunities in schools for
English as a Second Language programs ( Voices for Families, 2000) ; the changing ethnic
composition of the county has two housing­related
implications:
1. Per Census 2000, the average size of Hispanic or Latino households in California is
4.3 persons. Hispanic or Latino households in Amador County have an average
household size of 3.02 persons. This contrasts with the county­wide
average
household size of 2.39 persons. This indicates a future need for homes with 3+
bedrooms in those areas of the county where there are the highest concentrations of
Hispanic or Latino persons.
2. Similarly, as discussed in Section V( F), the unincorporated county has seen an
expansion in the production of wine and acres of wine grapes planted and harvested.
This expansion has increased the county’s demand for farm workers. According to A
Profile of U. S. Farm Workers: Demographics, Household Composition, Income and
Use of Services ( U. S. Department of Labor, Office of Program Economics Research
Report # 6 for the Commission on Immigrant Reform; September 16, 2003), farm
workers are predominantly Hispanic. 1 As indicated above, Hispanic households have
an average size of 4.3, indicates a future need for homes with 3+ bedrooms. [ See
Section V­F
for additional analysis of Farm Worker Housing Needs].
3. Based on the preceding statistics, the future demand for 3+ bedroom homes is likely
to occur in and around the cities of Ione and Plymouth ( and the Shenandoah Valley
surrounding Plymouth). Section VI ( F) of this report provides additional details.
1 Seven of 10 farm workers are foreign born. 94% of foreign born workers are Hispanic. Of the
remaining 3 of 10 farm workers born in the U. S. ; 1/ 3 are Hispanic.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­15
4. Jobs/ Housing Balance
Existing Conditions
Industry/ Economic Overview/ Labor force/ Unemployment
The civilian labor force in Amador County in 2000 totaled 14,230 individuals. 13,610 of
these individuals were employed in 2000 for an unemployment rate of 4.4%. The following
provides an overview of the industries in which the majority of Amador County residents are
employed:
Employment by Industry
Amador County, Census 2000
Industry Number of
Individuals
% Total
Individuals
Employed
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 531 3.9
Construction 1113 8.2
Manufacturing 1014 7.5
Wholesale trade 228 1.7
Retail trade 1717 12.6
Transportation & Warehousing, utilities 587 4.3
Information 279 2.0
Finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing 708 5.2
Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste
management services
1037 7.6
Educational, health and social services 2503 18.4
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food
services/ a/
1,720 12.6
Other services ( except public administration) 788 5.8
Public administration 1385 10.2
Total 13,610 100
/ a/ Includes amusement, gambling; performing arts, spectator sports, recreation and related industries
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­16
Largest Business & Agency Employers
The largest business and agency employers within Amador County are:
Largest Business/ Agency Employers
Amador County, 2000
( Amador Economic Development Corporation)
Employer Facility Type # Employees
Mule Creek State Prison ( Ione) Adult correctional facility 950
Jackson Rancheria Casino & Hotel Casino, hotel, conference center 700
Amador County Unified School District Education 579
Preston School of Industry Youth correctional facility 510
County of Amador County government 460
Sutter Amador Hospital Hospital 403
Wal­Mart
Retail store 245
MP Associates, Inc. Manufacturer 185
SunBridge Care Center Convalescent hospital 180
Ampine, SierraPine Ltd. Particle board manufacturer 130
Volcano Telephone Company Telephone, cable TV 124
K­Mart
Retail store 105
Safeway Stores, Inc. Grocery store 100
Fibreform Wood Products Molding manufacturer 80
Prospect Motors, Inc. Auto retailer 80
Raley’s Grocery store 75
Albertson’s Grocery store 72
One­Stop
markets Grocery store 70
Pine Grove Group Electronic components manufacturer 68
North American Refractories Clay, refractory products 62
ACM Machinery Machinery shop 57
During the preceding planning period, one of the county’s major employers, the Georgia
Pacific Mill in Martell, shut down with a loss of 6­800
jobs in the county. Amador County
is continuing to struggle with the economic ramifications from the loss of this major
employer.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­17
Projected Conditions
Based on projections from the California Employment Development Department Labor
Market Information Division ( CALMIS) ­Mother
Lode Consortium ( Calaveras, Amador,
Tuolumne and Mariposa counties) ; the following employment opportunities are anticipated
within the county.
Projected Employment Trends
The occupations projected to have the highest number of job openings through 2006 within
the Mother Lode Consortium ( Amador, Calaveras, Mariposa, and Tuolumne Counties) are:
1. Cashiers ( 810)
2. Salespersons, retail ( 560)
3. Correction officers, jailers ( 530)
4. Waiters and waitresses ( 530)
5. Combined food preparation service ( 330)
6. General office clerks ( 320)
7. General managers, top executives ( 280)
8. Teachers, elementary school ( 260)
9. Food preparation workers ( 250)
10. Teacher aides, paraprofessional ( 220)
11. Police officers ( 220)
12. Maids and housekeeping cleaners ( 220)
13. Registered nurses ( 210)
Declines are anticipated in job openings for typists, including word processors.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­18
Occupations projected to see the fastest growth rates over the planning period are:
Occupations with the Fastest % Growth
Mother Lode Consortium
2001­2008
Occupation
% Increase
through
2006
Education Required
( OJT=
On­the­Job­Training)
Team Assemblers 47.1 Moderate Term OJT
Medical Assistants 41.7 Moderate Term OJT
Personal & Home Care Aides 40.0 Short Term OJT
Social & Human Service Assistants 37.5 Moderate Term OJT
Drywall & Ceiling Tile Installer 37.5 Moderate Term OJT
Construction Laborers 36.4 Moderate Term OJT
Hotel, Motel & Resort Desk Clerks 32.0 Short Term OJT
Customer Service Representatives 31.3 Moderate Term OJT
Child Care Workers 31.3 Short Term OJT
First­Line
Supervisors; Managers of
Construction Trades 31.3 Work Experience
Electricians 31.3 Long Term OJT
Carpenters 30.9 Long Term OJT
Counter & Rental Clerks 30.8 Short Term OJT
Operating Engineers & Other
Construction Equipment Operators 30.8 Moderate Term OJT
Plumbers, Pipefitters & Steamfitters 30.8 Long Term OJT
Probation Officers & Correctional
Treatment Specialists 30.0 BA/ BS Degree
Painters, Construction & Maintenance 30.0 Moderate Term OJT
Gaming Dealers 28.6 Post­Sec.
Vocational Education
Police & Sheriff’s Patrol Officers 27.5 Long Term OJT
Computer Systems Analysts 27.3 BA/ BS Degree
Fitness Trainers & Aerobics Instructors 26.7 Post­Sec.
VocEd
Sales Reps, Wholesale & Mfg, Ex Tech &
Scientific Products 26.3 Moderate Term OJT
Maids & Housekeeping Cleaners 25.0 Short Term OJT
Teacher Assistants 25.0 Short Term OJT
Secondary School Teachers, Ex Special &
Vocational Education 25.0 BA/ BS Degree
Correctional Officers & Jailers 25.0 Moderate Term OJT
Truck Drivers, Heavy & Tractor­Trailer
25.0 Moderate Term OJT
Food Servers, Non­restaurant
25.0 Short Term OJT
Cement Masons & Concrete Finishers 25.0 Long Term OJT
Management Analysts 25.0 BA/ BS + Experience
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­19
Special Ed Teachers, Preschool,
Kindergarten & Elementary School 25.0 BA/ BS Degree
Pharmacists 25.0 Professional Degree
Interviewers, Except Eligibility & Loan 25.0 Short Term OJT
Machinists 25.0 Long Term OJT
Comb Food Prep & Serving Workers,
Including Fast Food 23.5 Short Term OJT
Amusement & Recreation Attendants 23.1 Short Term OJT
Dental Assistants 23.1 Moderate Term OJT
Nursing Aides, Orderlies & Attendants 22.9 Short Term OJT
Registered Nurses 22.8 Associate Degree
Landscaping & Grounds keeping Workers 22.2 Short Term OJT
First­Line
Sups/ Managers of Mechanics,
Installers 22.2 Work Experience
Recreation Workers 21.1 BA/ BS Degree
Retail Salespersons 20.0 Short Term OJT
Elementary School Teachers, Except
Special Ed 20.0 BA/ BS Degree
Truck Drivers, Light or Delivery Services 20.0 Short Term OJT
Bus Drivers, Transit & Intercity 20.0 Moderate Term OJT
Industrial Truck & Tractor Operators 20.0 Short Term OJT
Child, Family & School Social Workers 20.0 BA/ BS Degree
Automotive Service Technicians &
Mechanics 19.2 Post Sec. VocED
Firefighters 18.8 Long Term OJT
Source: December, 2003; www. calmis. cahwnet. gov/ FILE/ OCCPROJ/ MotheF& G. htm
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­20
Industry Wages Versus Wages Sufficient to Afford Fair Market Rent for a Three­Bedroom
Housing Unit
Comparison of Industry Sales, Payroll and Average Wage
Amador County, 2000
Industry #
establishments
Annual
sales receipts
Annual Payroll #
employees
Average employee
annual wage
Manufacturing 51 136,784,000 19,452,000 732 $ 26,574
Administrative & support & waste
management & remediation services
27 11,592,000 3,826,000 159 $ 24,063
Professional, scientific & technical services 50 9,290,000 2,707,000 119 $ 22,748
Other services ( except public administration) 32 8,115,000 1,631,000 98 $ 16,643
Retail trade 158 $ 475,025,000 25,682,000 1,570 $ 16,358
Real estate, rental and leasing 36 16,838,000 2,218,000 155 $ 14,310
Health care and social assistance 70 $ 26,566,000 8,949,000 631 $ 14,182
Accommodation & food services 106 $ 29,956,000 8,139,000 918 $ 8,866
Not available or Not disclosed:
Mining, utilities, construction, wholesale,
transportation & warehousing, information,
finance and insurance, management of
companies and enterprises, educational
services, arts/ entertainment & recreation
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­21
One of the greatest weaknesses in the economic and employment outlook in Amador County
is the increasing number of low­wage
jobs and the lack of a corresponding increase in
higher­wage
jobs.
Work Hours Per Week Necessary to Afford a
Three Bedroom Unit at Fair Market Rent ( 2000)
Amador County [ Voices for Families, 2002, p. 59]
Job Classification Weekly Work Hours to
Afford 3­Bedroom
Unit
( 1997 Mean Hourly Wages)
Waiters and waitresses 118.2
Child care workers 93.6
General office clerks 71.4
Carpenters 46.9
Secondary School Teachers 39.0
Registered nurses 34.7
Corrections Officers and Jailers 33.3
Wages Versus Ability to Afford Housing
“ To see how many hours per week a wage­earner
would have to work to
afford a three bedroom unit at the Fair Market Rate ( FMR), we looked at
seven different job classifications. To calculate the hours worked, we
used the mean hourly wages for each job using data for the most current
year ( 1997) available. The range went from 118.2 hours per week for
waiters and waitresses and to 33.3 hours for correction officers and jailers.
To afford the three­bedroom
unit at 40 hours per week, the National Low
Income Housing Coalition estimates that an individual would have to be
paid at least $ 16.85 per hour, without paid holidays or sick leave.”
Voices for Families, pps 58­59
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­22
Analysis
Economic Strengths: Economic/ Employment Strengths in Amador County include:
T An increase in the total number of businesses ( 7% increase) between1988 and1996
T The number of firms with 20 or more employees grew by 41% between 1988 and
1996
T Firms with less than 20 employees grew by 4% ( 1988­1996)
T Tourism spending reached $ 110 million in 1996 ( 12% of total payroll)
T Amador County’s unemployment rate has fallen below the statewide average
dropping from a high of 9.1% in 1993 to an all­time
low of 4.6% in 1999.
T During the 1990s, Amador County had a lower job­to­labor
force ratio than
California ( i. e., there was less of a disparity between available jobs and those in the
labor force in Amador County than in the state overall). It is generally true that, as
the ratio of jobs to workers approaches 1.0, there is a greater balance between jobs
and populations within the community. In Amador County, that ratio has steadily
increased from .64 to .78 in 1999.
Sierra Nevada Wealth Index 1999­2000,
pg. 94
Voices for Families, p. 53
Economic Weaknesses: Economic and Employment Concerns in Amador County
include:
T Growth in high wage service jobs, now 27% of all jobs, did not keep pace with the
Sierra Nevada level of 31%
T Low wage services jobs grew from 23 to 32% of all jobs between 1972 and 1996
Sierra Nevada Wealth Index 1999­2000,
pg. 94
Voices for Families pps. 53, 58
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­23
In summary, the following conclusions may be drawn from the preceding:
T The jobs/ housing gap is widening in Amador County
T Low­wage
service jobs are increasing
T Higher­wage
service jobs are not keeping pace with the region
T Without higher wage jobs, more families will be unable to afford housing in Amador
County
T Without some degree of training and/ or education, job seekers will be unable to gain
employment in higher­wage
jobs
T A wage of $ 16.85 per hour is necessary to afford a three­bedroom
housing unit at Fair
Market Rent in Amador County
T Without an increase in low­cost
housing, low­wage
service workers essential to the
county will be unable to afford housing in Amador County
Strategies for Achieving Jobs/ Housing Balance
The following strategies are recommended to assist the county in achieving an equitable
balance between job opportunities, wages and housing affordability and supply:
Continue to Support Establishment of a Business Park
Continue to coordinate with the Economic Development Corporation and to provide
assistance to landowners/ developers in the re­development
of the former mill site in Martell.
Consider formation of a Redevelopment Agency/ District in this area to support the creation
of jobs, affordable housing and infrastructure improvements necessary to attract higher­wage
jobs thereby increasing the number of residents who are able to afford housing in the county.
Advocate the Inclusion of Affordable Housing
Consider hiring a professional to meet/ negotiate with developers/ landowners associated with
the redevelopment of the former mill site in Martell ( and the surrounding area) to discuss
incentives to induce developers/ landowners to include affordable housing in redevelopment
plans ( e. g., establishing a redevelopment district to assist with infrastructure improvements
etc.).
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­24
Small Business Loans
Promote the availability of small business loans through the Economic Development
Corporation for the retention and expansion of existing county businesses. The county may
participate in this promotion by offering a link to the EDC on its website, providing staff
with a short training session on the types and availability of small business loans through the
EDC, and/ or by providing handouts at public counters.
Increase Access to Job Training/ Education
To assist residents in taking advantage of higher­wage
jobs as they become available, some
level of job training and/ or education is likely to be necessary. The county and its
incorporated cities should consider the establishment of a satellite education center ( perhaps
using redevelopment funds) to assist residents in gaining the training necessary to earn wages
sufficient to afford the Fair Market Rent for a three­bedroom
home in Amador County.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­25
B. Household Characteristics
1. Household Type and Presence of Children
Household/ Size­Population
Characteristics
1990­2000
1990 Census 2000 Census
Incorporated +
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
County
Incorporated +
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
County
Average
Household Size
( range in cities)
2.41 2.48
2.39
( 2.21­2.70)
2.36
Average
Family Size
( Range in Cities)
2.81
( 2.74­3.14)
2.81
Total #
Households
10,555
6,965
( 66% of Total)
12,759
8,430
( 66% of Total)
Total
Population
30,038
17,136
( 57% of Total)
35,100
19,919
( 57% of Total)
Source: U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000 Summary file Amador County, DP­1
Profile of General
Demographic Characteristics
2000 Household Characteristics ( General)
Household 1990 2000
Type Unincorporated +
Incorporated Unincorporated Unincorporated
+ Incorporated Unincorporated
Family 7,683 ( 73%) 5,225 ( 75.4%) 9,069 ( 71.1%) 6,280 ( 74.5%)
Non­family
2,835 ( 27%) 1,703 ( 24.6%) 3,690 ( 28.9%) 2,150 ( 25.5%)
Total 10,518 ( 100%) 6,928 ( 100%) 12,759 ( 100%) 8,430 ( 100%)
U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000 Summary file
Amador County, DP­1
Profile of General Demographic Characteristics
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­26
2000 Amador County Household Characteristics
( Detailed: Incorporated + Unincorporated County)
Household Type Household
Total
Percentage of Total
Family & Nonfamily
Family
Married couple with children
Married without children
7,451 58.5
Single Heads of Households w/
own or not own children
1,623 12.7
Subtotal Family Households 9,074 71.2
Non­Family
Householder alone
( 1,443 over age 65)
3,059 24.0
Other non­family
608 4.8
Subtotal Non­family
Households 3,667 28.8
Total Family & Non­Family
Households/ a/
12,741 100.0
/ a/ Does not equal 12,759 used elsewhere due to differences in sampling methods
U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000 Summary file
Amador County, DP­1
Profile of General Demographic Characteristics
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­27
Elderly and Children
Household Characteristics
Amador County, 2000
Incorporated +
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Household Type County
#
households
% Total
( 12,759)
#
households
% Total
( 8,430)
Households with
individuals 18 or
under
3,691 28.9 2,370 28.1
Households with
individuals over 65
4,312 33.8 2,802 33.2
Total 8,003 62.7 5,172 61.3
U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000 Summary file
Amador County, DP­1
Profile of General Demographic Characteristics
County/ City/ State Comparisons
Amador County has a smaller average household size ( 2.39 persons) than does the state ( 2.87
persons). Similarly, the county has a smaller average family size ( 2.81) than does the state
( 3.43). The average household size of the county’s incorporated cities ranges from 2.21 to
2.7 persons. The average family size in the county’s incorporated cities ranges from 2.74 to
3.14 persons. The largest average family size ( 3.14) is found in Ione, with the second­largest
family sizes found in Plymouth ( 2.99).
► Ione and Plymouth have the largest average family sizes in the county
As noted earlier in this Section, there is a higher concentration of Hispanic or Latino
households located near Ione ( the site of the Mule Creek Prison) than in other portions of the
county. Similarly, due to the growing wine grape industry near Plymouth, farm worker
populations are increasing near this incorporated area of the county. As documented in
Section VI, Hispanics compose the largest group of farm workers in California. As also
documented in Section VI, the average size of Hispanic or Latino households tend to fall
between 3 and 4 persons per household. Therefore, average family household sizes in and
around Ione and Plymouth are larger than the county average.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­28
6.4% of Amador County’s households are female single­parent
family households. In
comparison single female parent households are distributed throughout the county as follows:
% of Total Households Headed by a
Female Single Parent
( Amador County, 2000)
Jurisdiction % of Total
Households
Amador City 10.6%
Ione 10.4%
Jackson 7.4%
Plymouth 11.2%
Sutter Creek 9.2%
Unincorporated + Incorporated County 6.4%
► Plymouth, Amador City and Ione have significantly larger
populations of single female parent headed households than does the
remainder of the county.
The number of single­female
headed households found in Ione may be attributed to the
presence of the Mule Creek Prison ( wives living alone with children while a spouse is
incarcerated). In Plymouth, it is assumed that Census 2000 enumerators counted households
in the 49er Trailer Village ( a travel trailer park with 391 spaces including only 25 permanent
spaces)— evidence that single­female
parent households may be resorting to travel trailers to
house themselves and their children. Finally, the presence of a relatively high percentage of
single­female
parent households in Amador City may be related to the age of the housing
stock in that city. As noted in subsequent sections, the median year in which homes were
built in Amador City is 1939. The presence of a relatively high concentration of single­female
headed households there indicates that these old homes are providing either more
affordable rents than elsewhere in the county or, perhaps, may be purchased at a lower price
as “ fixer uppers.”
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­29
Analysis
Household/ Family Size
Average family and household sizes in Amador County have remained relatively steady
between 1990 and 2000.
Family/ Non­Family
Households
The distribution of family versus non­family
households in Amador County has remained
relatively steady between 1990 and 2000.
Living Alone
The number of households with individuals living alone remained relatively stable between
1990 ( 22.3% of total households) and 2000 ( 24.0% of total households).
Seniors Living Alone
The number of householders living alone over the age of 65 declined slightly between 1990
( 13.7% of total householders) and 2000 ( 11.3% of total householders). The county should
continue to monitor this statistic as a potential indicator of the ability of individuals 65 years
of age or older to afford housing.
Seniors Not Living Alone
The number of households with one or more individuals 65 years of age or older remained
almost unchanged between 1990 ( 34.1% of all households) and 2000 ( 33.8% of all
households).
Households with Individuals Under 18
The number of households with individuals under the age of 18 remained nearly unchanged
between 1990 ( 28.7% of total households) and 2000 ( 29% of all households).
Female­Headed
Households with Own Children
The number of female parent only households more than doubled between 1990 ( 3% of total
households) and 2000 ( 6.4% of total households).
► Female­headed
Households with Children
The number of female­headed
households with their own children
rose from 3% of total households in 1990 to 6.4% of total households
in the county in 2000.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­30
► Married Couples
The number of married couple households declined between 1990
( 64.5% of total households) and 2000 ( 58.5% of total households).
An analysis of the special needs of female parent headed households are discussed in Section
VI.
The decline in married couple households in the county may be partially explained by the
increased number of single­female
parent households in the county ( resulting from divorces).
Similarly, it is assumed that, in Ione, near the Mule Creek Prison, enumerators count married
females living alone with their children while a spouse is incarcerated as a single­female
parent headed household ( and not as a married couple household)— also a contributor to the
decline. Based on a decline in the number of those age 65 years and over living alone, it is
unlikely that seniors living alone due to the loss of a spouse is a contributor to the decline in
the percentage of married couples in the county.
2. Household Income and Housing Costs
2003 Annual Household Income by Category
Median: $ 56,000 for a Family of 4
Income Number of Persons in Family
Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Very low 19,600 22,400 25,200 28,000 30,250 32,500 34,700 36,950
Lower 31,350 35,850 40,300 44,800 48,400 51,950 55,550 59,150
Median 39,200 44,800 50,400 56,000 60,500 64,950 69,450 73,900
Moderate 47,050 53,750 60,500 67,200 72,600 77,950 83,350 88,700
( CA Dpt. of Housing and Community Development, April 9,2003)
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­31
Projected Annual Wages for Income Groups for a Family of Four
Amador County, 2003
Very low 50% or less of the area median family income for
the county ( except that HUD has established a
higher limit in some areas based on high rent levels
relative to incomes in that area)
$ 0­$
28,559
Lower 51% ­80%
of the median family income for the
county $ 28,560­$
45,359
Moderate 81% ­120%
of the median family income for the
county $ 45,360­$
67,759
Above
moderate
121% and above of the median family income for
the county $ 67,760+
Housing Costs 1990­2000
Housing Type
1990
Median Monthly Cost or
Cost Range in Dollars
2000
Median Monthly Cost or
Cost Range in Dollars
Single­family
Owner­occupied
( monthly mortgage payment)
$ 773 $ 1,140
Studio rental Less than $ 200 $ 500­$
749
1 BR Rental $ 300­$
499 $ 300­$
499
2 BR Rental $ 500­$
749 $ 500­749
3 BR+ Rental $ 500­$
749 $ 750­$
999
County California – Data extracted from Census 2000
Housing, 2000 [ California]: Summary File 3 ( June 22, 2003)
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­32
Residential Real Estate Sales
Amador County Association of Realtors
Amador County, 2002
Type of Real Estate Total #
Sales
Average Sale Price
Single Family Residential
Two bedroom or less 225 $ 164,878
Three bedroom 315 $ 240,417
Four bedroom 48 $ 339,365
Five + bedrooms 7 $ 439,428
Condo/ Townhouse 3 $ 107,667
Mobile home 65 $ 73,261
Multi­family
14 $ 208,115
The average cost of land in 2002 was $ 73,500 per acre.
County/ City Comparisons
The range of monthly rental costs in the incorporated county closely mimics those in the
unincorporated county.
The median value of owner­occupied
units in the incorporated county is highest in Amador
City ($ 167,900) and lowest in Plymouth ($ 106,300).
Analysis
► The median value of owner­occupied
housing units increased 28%
from $ 120,000 in 1990 to $ 153,700 in 2000 countywide.
► The median contract rent in Amador County increased by 38.2%
from $ 411 per month in 1990 to $ 568 per month in 2000.
Based on the income limits established by the California Housing and Community
Development, the following summarizes the estimated “ affordable housing” costs for all
income levels in Amador County:
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­33
Cost of Affordable Housing for 3­Person
Households
($ 50,400 Median Income)
Amador County, 2000
Income Category ( income range)
Annual Cost
( Monthly Cost)
of Affordable Housing
Estimated Total
Cost of Affordable
Home
( owner occupied)/ a/
Very low ($ 25,703 or less) $ 7,560 annual ($ 630/ month) $ 63,000 or less
Low ($ 25,704­$
40,823) $ 7,561­$
12,090 annual
($ 631­$
1,008/ month)
$ 63,001­$
100,800
Moderate ($ 40,824­$
60,983) $ 12,091­$
15,120
($ 1009­$
1,260/ month)
$ 100,801
$ 126,000
Above Moderate ($ 60,984+) $ 15,121­$
18,150
($ 1,261 ­$
1,513/ month)
$ 126,001­$
151,300
/ a/ Based on the “ rule of thumb” that a monthly mortgage payment will approximately
equal the sales price of the home divided by 100.
The average sales price for a two­bedroom
home ( accommodating a three­person
household)
is $ 164,080. The $ 50,400 median income for a family of three will purchase a home of
approximately $ 126,000.
► A family of three earning the median county income will encounter
an average shortfall of approximately $ 38,100 when purchasing a
two­bedroom
home in Amador County.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­34
3. Overpayment
Households paying more than 30% gross annual income are considered to be overpaying for
rent or mortgage payments.
Overpayment
Amador County 1990­2000
1990 Census
Total Households
Occupied: 10,518
Owner Occupied: 7,842
Renter Occupied: 2,676
2000 Census
Total Households
Occupied: 12,759
Owner Occupied: 9,629
Renter Occupied: 2,945
Occupied
Housing
Type
# Overpaying % Overpaying # Overpaying % Overpaying
Owner ­Overall
1,217 15.5%/ a/ 1,856 19.3%/ a/
Renter – Overall 904 33.8%/ b/ 1,163 39.5%/ b/
Total Households
Overpaying
2,121 20.2%/ c/ 3,019 23.7%/ c/
Renter –
Very Low Income
( Family of 4)
943/ c/ 81.1%/ e/
Renter
Low Income
( Family of 4)
194/ c/ 16.7%/ e/
Owner –
Very Low Income
( Family of 4)
903/ c/ 48.7%/ f/
Owner –
Lower Income
( Family of 4)
510/ c/ 5.3%/ f/
/ a/ Percentage of total owner occupied households
/ b/ Percentage of total renter occupied households
/ c/ Extrapolated from Household Income in 1999 by Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income in
1999, Census 2000. Income levels reported in the Census do not precisely match income level cut­offs
for low and very low income households in Amador County, therefore, numbers are extrapolated
/ d/ Estimated. Census 2000 categories for household income do not precisely correspond to ranges for
low and very low income households in Amador County.
/ e/ Percentage of all overpaying renter households
/ f/ Percentage of all overpaying owner households ( with a mortgage)
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­35
Renters Overpaying ( Family of 4)
By Income Category, by Area
TTL Renters TTL Renters
Overpaying
Very Low
Overpaying
( 0­$
28,559)
Lower
Overpaying
($ 28,560­$
43,359)
Moderate
Overpaying
($ 45,360­$
67,759)
Above Mod.
Overpaying
($ 67,760+)
County 2,945
( 218
uncounted)
1,163 943 194 24 2
Unincorporated County 1,152 460
( 39.9% TTL Renters)
378
( 82.2% of overpays)
71
( 15.4%
overpays)
9
( 2.0%
overpays)
2
( 0.4%
overpays)
Amador 29 10 8 2 0 0
Ione 423 146 138 8 0 0
Jackson 811 348 262 74 12 0
Plymouth 134 62 44 16 2 0
Sutter Creek 396 137 113 23 1 0
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­36
Renters Overpaying ( Family of 3)
By Income Category, by Area
TTL Renters TTL Renters
Overpaying
Very Low
Overpaying
( 0­$
25,703)
Lower
Overpaying
($ 25,704­$
40,823)
Moderate
Overpaying
($ 40,824­$
60,983)
Above Mod.
Overpaying
($ 60,984 +)
County 2,945
( 218 uncounted)
1,163 875 245 39 4
Unincorporated County 1,152 460
( 39.9% ttl renters)
349
( 75.9% overpays)
98
( 21.3% overpays)
9
( 2.0%
overpays)
4
( 0.8% overpays)
Amador 29 10 7 3 0 0
Ione 423 146 134 12 0 0
Jackson 811 348 242 82 24 0
Plymouth 134 62 39 19 4 0
Sutter Creek 396 137 104 31 2 0
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­37
Owners Overpaying w/ Mortgage ( Family of 4)
By Income Category, by Area
TTL Owners
w/ Mortgage
TTL Owners
Overpaying
w/ mortgage
Very Low
Overpaying
( 0­$
28,559)
Lower
Overpaying
($ 28,560­$
43,359)
Moderate
Overpaying
($ 45,360­$
67,759)
Above Mod.
Overpaying
($ 67,760+)
County 4,778 1,856 903 510 310 133
Unincorporated County 3,404 1,349
( 39.6% total owners
w/ mortgage)
616
45.7% of overpays
385
28.5% of
overpays
249
18.5% of
overpays
99
7.3% of
overpays
Amador 28 13 5 3 4 1
Ione 454 162 84 49 20 9
Jackson 453 169 105 43 18 3
Plymouth 102 41 29 10 2 0
Sutter Creek 337 122 64 20 17 21
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­38
Owners Overpaying w/ Mortgage ( Family of 3)
By Income Category, by Area
TTL Owners
w/ mortgage
TTL Owners
Overpaying
w/ mortgage
Very Low
Overpaying
( 0­$
28,559)
Lower
Overpaying
($ 28,560­$
43,359)
Moderate
Overpaying
($ 45,360­$
67,759)
Above Mod.
Overpaying
($ 67,760+)
County 4,778 1,856 1,059 233 361 203
Unincorporated County 3,404 1,349
( 39.6% total owners
w/ mortgage)
723
53.6% of overpays
180
13.3% of
overpays
292
21.6% of
overpays
154
11.4% of
overpays
Amador 28 13 5 2 4 2
Ione 454 162 106 19 23 14
Jackson 453 169 116 20 27 6
Plymouth 102 41 34 4 3 0
Sutter Creek 337 122 75 8 12 27
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­39
County/ City Comparisons
Owners
Of the total 1,856 owners overpaying in the incorporated and unincorporated county, 1,413
( 76.1%) are in low or very low income households ( based on a family of 4). 1,349 ( 72.6%) of
overpaying owners are located in the unincorporated county. 1,001 of the 1,349 overpaying
owner households in the unincorporated county ( 74.2%) are in very low and lower income
households.
Renters
Of the total 1,163 renters overpaying, 460 ( 40%) are in the unincorporated county ( with 60%
in cities). By an overwhelming margin ( 97.2%), most overpaying renter households in the
unincorporated county are in low or very low income households.
Analysis
► 74.2% of overpaying homeowners and 97.2% of overpaying renters
located in the unincorporated county are in very low or lower income
households.
► The majority of overpaying homeowners ( 72.6%) are living in the
unincorporated county while the majority of overpaying renters
( 60%) live within the county’s incorporated cities ( i. e., 40% live in
the unincorporated county).
These statistics indicate that programs targeting homeowners are likely to be more in demand
in the unincorporated portions of the county while programs targeting renters are expected to
be most in demand within the county’s incorporated cities.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­40
4. Household Income Characteristics
Household Income Characteristics
Amador County, 1990­2003
Income Group
No. of
Households
Amador
County, 1990
% Total
Amador
County, 1990
No. of
Households
Amador
County 2000
% Total
Amador County,
2000
Very low 1,541 24% 2,807 22%
Other low 979 15% 2,041 16%
Moderate 1,381 22% 2,552 20%
Above
Moderate
2,531 39% 5,359 42%
Total 10,518 100.00% 12,759 100.00%
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000 Summary file; Amador County, DP­1
Profile of General
Demographic Characteristics; Central Sierra Planning Council – Regional Housing Needs Allocation August 6,
2003; 1992 Amador County Housing Element
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­41
County/ City Comparison
Percentage of Households in Each Income Group
for Each Jurisdiction in Amador County
Jurisdiction Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Amador City 14% 14% 37% 35%
Ione 26% 18% 15% 41%
Jackson 31% 17% 18% 34%
Plymouth 26% 17% 25% 32%
Sutter Creek 21% 15% 19% 45%
Unincorporated
County
21% 16% 18% 45%
Analysis
The distribution of very low, low, moderate and above moderate income households has
remained nearly the same between 1990 and 2000.
► The largest concentration of very low income households can be
found in and around Jackson ( 31%), Ione ( 26%) and Plymouth
( 26%). Programs targeting very low income households should be
concentrated in and around these three areas.
The highest concentration of low income households is relatively evenly distributed
throughout the county.
The highest concentration of moderate income households is in Amador City ( 37%) with
Plymouth being a distant second ( 25%) and Ione having the fewest moderate income
households in the county.
The highest concentrations of above moderate income households are in Sutter Creek and the
Unincorporated County.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­42
5. Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms.
Overcrowding
Amador County, 2000
Housing Type
Number of Overcrowded
Households
Incorporated +
Unincorporated
Number of Overcrowded
Unincorporated Only
Owner occupied 251 178
Renter occupied 198 79
Total 449 257
Census 2000: Tenure by Occupants Per Room
County/ City Comparison
The highest percentage of overcrowded homes is found in Ione ( 5.4% of households),
consistent with previous statistics indicating an average family size above that of the county
average. This can be partially attributed to the concentration of a portion of the county’s
Hispanic population in Ione and the accompanying family sizes above the county average.
Surprisingly, the lowest concentration of overcrowded households is in Plymouth ( 1.3% of
total households) where the average family size also is above the county average. Based on
this statistic, it is anticipated that an update of the county’s housing conditions survey will
find that Plymouth has a higher concentration of 3+ bedroom homes than in some other
portions of the county.
Analysis
In 1990, Amador County identified 376 households with overcrowding in the incorporated
and unincorporated county.
► The 449 overcrowded households reported in the 2000 Census
represents an increase of nearly 20% in overcrowded households
over the past 10 years.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­43
This indicates the need to provide affordable housing with total bedrooms per unit which
reflect the average family size found in the community. For example, more bedrooms per
unit should be encouraged in affordable housing in Ione than in Plymouth.
6. Group Quarters
Group Quarters
Amador County 1990­2000
U. S. Census Bureau – 1990 & 2000
Group Quarters 1990
# individuals
2000
# individuals
Institutional Population 4,637 4,477
Non­institutional
69 104
Total 4,706 4,581
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­44
County/ City Comparison
Distribution of Institutional Group Quarters
Amador County, Census 2000
Group
Quarters
Amador Ione Jackson Plymouth Sutter
Creek
Unincorporated
County
Total
Institutional Group Quarters
Local Jails,
Police Lockups
25 25
State Prisons 3,457 3,457
Other
Correctional
80 80
Nursing Homes 138 1 139
Hospital­for
physically
handicapped
10 10
Hospital –
wards for
patients
w/ o home
elsewhere
1 1
Juvenile
institution
765 765
Subtotal Institutional Group Quarters 4,477
Non­institutional
Group Quarters
Group Home for
mentally ill
34 34
Group Home for
mentally
retarded
5 5
Group Home for
physically
handicapped
4 4
Other 60 1 61
Subtotal Non­institutionalized
population in Group Quarters 104
TOTAL 0 4,231 268 0 1 81 4,581
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­45
Total Population in Institutional Group Quarters
by Age, Sex, Institution Type
Amador County – Census 2000
Population
Description
Correctional
Institutions
Nursing
Homes Other Total
Under 18 Years of Age
Male 3 0 375 378
Female 0 0 2 2
Subtotal Under 18 3 0 377 380
Age 18­64
Male 3,528 4 388 3,920
Female 5 4 0 9
Subtotal 18­64
3,533 8 388 3,929
Age 65 Years and Over
Male 26 33 3 62
Female 0 98 8 106
Subtotal 65+ 26 131 11 168
Total 3,562 139 776 4,477
Analysis
As clearly indicated, the largest concentration of individuals in group quarters is found in
Ione, the site of the Mule Creek Prison.
► Given the high percentage of the county population age 65 and over
( 18%), there are surprisingly few individuals in nursing homes ( only
2.2%) throughout the county.
This statistic may indicate that: a) seniors in need of assisted living facilities are leaving the
county; b) there is a need for additional assisted living facilities for seniors within the county;
c) in­home
support services provided by the county and/ or other seniors in the community
are performing admirably, or d) seniors in Amador County receive above average health care
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­46
reducing the need for nursing home facilities. This indicator should be further studied in
conjunction with considering new proposal for senior assisted living facilities.
C. Housing Characteristics
1. Housing Stock
Housing Stock by Housing Type
Single Family, Multi­Family,
Mobile homes
Amador County
1999 – CA Dpt. of Finance
Description Incorporated County Unincorporated County
# Units % Total
Incorporated
# units % Total
Unincorporated
Single Family 3,079 69% 9,096 87%
Attached 182 4.1% 105 1.0%
Detached 2,897 64.9% 8,991 86.0%
Multi­Family
901 20.2% 231 2.2%
2­4
Units 320 7.2% 132 1.3%
5+ Units 581 13.0% 99 0.9%
Mobile homes 484 10.8% 1,114 10.7%
Mobile homes 484 10.8% 1,114 10.7%
Total Housing
Units/ a/
4,464 100.0 10,441 99.9
/ a/ May not equal 100% due to rounding
County/ City Comparisons
As illustrated in the preceding table, the majority of multi­family
housing units are
concentrated near services within the incorporated cities ( 20.2% in cities versus 2.2% in the
unincorporated county).
Analysis
The distribution of housing types in the unincorporated county has remained virtually
unchanged between 1990 ( 86% single­family
residential; 2% multi­family;
and 11% mobile
homes) and 2000 ( 87% single­family
residential; 2.2% multi­family
and 10.7% mobile
homes).
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­47
However, given the increasing population with larger families, the need to increase the total
number of bedrooms in housing in some areas of the county should be given consideration in
evaluating affordable housing proposals.
2. Housing Conditions
Amador County completed a drive­by
survey of all county housing units ( 9,234 units) in
October, 1993. A detailed housing condition survey of the 455 units identified in the drive­by
survey as having some degree of deterioration was conducted by the housing staff of the
Central Sierra Planning Council with the following results:
Housing Conditions
Amador County ( Unincorporated)
October, 1993
Degree of
Deterioration
Number of
Housing Units
% of Total
Surveyed
% Total
Housing
Units in
County
Minor 81 18% 0.9%
Moderate 236 52% 2.6%
Substantial 122 27% 1.3%
Dilapidated 16 4% 0.2%
Total/ a/ 455 101% 5%
/ a/ May not equal 100% due to rounding
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­48
Age of Housing Stock
Amador County, 2000
Median Year Structure Built: 1977
Year Structure Built Total
Housing
Units
Percentage of
Total
1990­2000
2,812 18.7
1980­1989
3,693 24.6
1970­1979
3,725 24.8
1960­1969
1,457 9.7
1950­1959
1,152 7.7
1940­1949
784 5.2
1939 or earlier 1,412 9.4
Total/ a/ 15,035 100.1
Source: U. S. Census 2000, Summary File 3
/ a/ May not equal 100% due to rounding
County/ City Comparison
The median year of construction for structures in the incorporated and unincorporated
county ranges from 1968 to 1979 with a single notable exception— In Amador City,
the median year of construction is 1939.
Analysis
Given the relatively recent construction dates of housing structures within the
unincorporated county and the small ( 5%) number of housing units identified as
requiring substantial rehabilitation, this housing element includes provisions for
housing rehabilitation, but places a stronger emphasis on the creation of new units
over rehabilitation of existing housing units.
Please refer to Section VI for a discussion of the needs of seniors with respect to
home maintenance and rehabilitations.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­49
3. Occupancy and Vacancy Rates
Household Occupancy Status
Amador County 1990­2000
U. S. Census Bureau 1990, 2000
( incorporated + unincorporated county)
Occupancy Status 1990 Census
1990
Vacancy
Rate
2000
Census
2000
Vacancy
Rate
Occupied Units 10,518 12,759
Vacant Units/ a/ 2,296 2,276
Tota
l
12,814 17.9% 15,035 15.1%
/ a/ Includes for rent, for sale, rented or sold but not occupied, seasonal or occasional use, migrant worker
housing
County/ City/ State Comparisons
The overall vacancy rate in the county’s incorporated cities is 5% lower than the vacancy rate
in the unincorporated county ( 15.1% in the unincorporated county versus 7% overall in the
cities). This is attributed, in large part, to the high number of second homes and recreational
houses in the high elevations of the unincorporated county adjacent to the counties lakes and
winter sports areas.
Contrary to statistics elsewhere in the county, the City of Plymouth has an unusually high
14.2% vacancy rate in comparison to the 6.1­7.3%
vacancy rates found in the county’s four
other cities. As previously discussed, this high vacancy rate does not accurately characterize
the city, where unoccupied homes are relatively rare. It is likely that this statistics reflects
the presence of a recreational vehicle park in Plymouth has 25 permanent spaces, but also
more than 300 spaces for transient recreational use. The county should confirm that Census
2000 enumerators counted vacant RV pads as unoccupied housing units, thereby skewing the
vacancy rate in the City of Plymouth.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­50
Analysis
The percentage of vacant housing units in the county declined slightly between 1990 ( 17.9%)
and 2000 ( 15.1%). The county should continue to monitor this statistic to determine whether
seasonal homes previously used as second dwellings are increasingly becoming permanent
residences or if these units are being made available for sale or rent to county residents.
4. Owner/ Renter Occupation
More County residents own rather than rent their homes.
Owner/ Renter Housing Units
Amador County 1990­2000
Housing Units 1990 Census 2000 Census
Occupied
Owner
7,842
( 74.6% of total
occupied units)
9,629
( 75.5% of total
occupied units)
Renter
2,676
( 25.4% of total
occupied units)
3,130
( 24.5% of total
occupied units)
Subtotal Occupied 10,518 12,759
Vacant/ a/
2,296
( 17.9% of total
housing units)
2,276
( 15.1% of total
housing units)
Total Housing Units 12,814 15,035
/ a/ Includes for rent, for sale, rented or sold but not occupied, seasonal or occasional use,
migrant worker housing
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­51
Households by Tenure
Amador County, 2000
Total for Area Owner
Occupied
% Total Renter
Occupied
% Total
Total County/ a/ 12,759 9,620 75.4% 3,139 24.6%
Unincorporated County 8,430 7,063 83.8% 1,367 16.2%
Amador 85 56 65.9% 29 34.1%
Ione 1,081 662 61.2% 419 38.8%
Jackson 1,746 983 56.3% 763 43.7%
Plymouth 392 253 64.5% 139 35.5%
Sutter Creek 1,025 603 58.8% 422 41.2%
/ a/ Differs slightly from preceding table due to adjustments made in Census after initial counts
County/ City/ State Comparisons
75.5% of county residents own their homes in comparison to only 56.9% of residents
statewide. In the unincorporated county, the margin widens with 83.3% of households
owning their homes. Incorporated cities in Amador County more closely mimic state
statistics with 59.7% of total occupied housing units being owner occupied and 40.3% are
renter occupied. The ratio of owner occupied to renter occupied housing units is relatively
uniform within the county’s incorporated cities where owner occupied homes compose
between 60.5% and 65.9% of total housing units.
The availability of rental units in the unincorporated county is significantly lower than in
incorporated cities.
Analysis
The ratio of owner occupied units to renter occupied housing units countywide has remained
at nearly 3: 1 ( Owner­to­Renter
occupied units) between 1990 and 2000.
Given the disparity between the county’s median income and the average sales price of
homes, it is clear that an increase in rental housing in and around the county’s incorporated
cities is essential if the county is to meet its affordable housing goals.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­52
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­1
VI. Special Needs Households
A. Households with Individuals 65 Years and Over
Households with Individuals 65 Years and Over
Amador County, 2000
Total County
Households
Total Households w/
65+ age resident
Total % Households
w/ 65+ age resident
12,759 4,312 33.8
Householders 65 and Older by Tenure
Amador County, 2000
Area Owner Householder
65+
Renter Householder
65+
Total Householder
65+
County ( total) 3,421 549 3,970
Unincorporated 2,393 159 2,552
Amador 17 2 19
Ione 182 67 249
Jackson 482 182 664
Plymouth 89 26 115
Sutter Creek 258 113 371
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­2
Senior Support Organizations
Several organizations have been established to assess and endeavor to meet the needs of this
significant sector of Amador County’s population including:
Area 12 Agency on Agency
This agency collects data from seniors at various senior functions, at senior nutrition sites,
HICAP surveys, senior expos, through mail surveys, senior expos, area plan dinners,
advisory council meetings, governing board meetings and demographic reports and similar
activities. Data collection is used to identify the special needs of seniors in Alpine, Amador,
Calaveras, Mariposa and Tuolumne counties. A12AA also assists the county with its senior
meals programs and other programs in support of seniors.
Amador County Commission on Aging
The Amador County Commission on Aging is a county organization established by the
Amador County Board of Supervisors and charged with advocating senior issues on behalf of
the county’s seniors.
Adult Protective Services ( APS)
The Amador County Adult Protective Services provides assistance to elderly and dependent
adults who are functionally impaired, unable to meet their own needs, and who are victims of
abuse, neglect, or exploitation. APS staff provides or coordinates support services including
counseling, referrals for conservatorships, and advocacy. They also provide information and
education to other agencies and the public regarding reporting requirements pursuant to elder
and dependent adult abuse reporting laws.
Amador County Department of Social Services: General Assistance Program
This is a county­funded
assistance program for indigent adults who do not receive aid from
other state or federal assistance programs.
Amador County Department of Social Services: In­Home
Support Services ( IHSS)
The programs helps pay for services to assist seniors and/ or the disabled to remain living in
their homes. IHSS is considered an alternative to out­of­home
care, such as nursing homes
and board and care facilities. IHSS can provide housecleaning, meal preparation, laundry,
grocery shopping, personal care services ( bathing, grooming, paramedical services),
accompaniment to medical appointments and protective supervision for the mentally
impaired. These services are available to any individual, regardless of income.
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­3
A Step Ahead – Partnering in Elder Services
This organization provides senior care advocacy services.
Senior Meals Programs
See Amador Senior Center for a description of this program.
Senior facilities
Senior facilities in Amador County include:
Amador Senior Center ( ASC)
The Amador Senior Center is located in Jackson at 229 New York Ranch Road and is
managed by the non­profit
Amador Senior Services, Inc. The center opened in 1985 and was
built primarily with funds raised by the senior community.
The center provides kitchen facilities for the county’s senior meals programs. Meals for
seniors are prepared and served at the center, delivered to homes, and are served weekly in
the cities of Ione and Plymouth. The center also provides senior meal service to portions of
Calaveras County.
The center provides legal services one day each week and has a listing service for seniors in
need of special services ( e. g., home maintenance).
ASC has an extensive social program including card groups, bingo, dancing, a humanities
class, ceramics, a photo lab, quilting class, and bus trips to Reno and Tahoe. ASC is also the
meeting site of various health support groups ( Alzheimer’s, Better Breathers, Hospice).
Seniors actively participate in fund­raising
events to help support the center ( e. g., dinners,
candy sales, an on­site
boutique). The center also receives a $ 10,000 allocation from the
county. The non­profit
Amador Senior Foundation was established to accept donations and
bequests on behalf of the senior center.
Senior Care Facilities
Senior care facilities in Amador County include:
Amador Residential Care Home ( Jackson)
Gold Quartz Inn Senior Retirement Home ( Sutter Creek)
Oak Manor ( Jackson) – this facility is located adjacent to the Amador Senior Center
SunBridge Care Center ( Jackson)
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­4
County/ City/ State Comparisons
2,802 ( 33%) households within the unincorporated county include individuals aged 65 years
or older. In comparison, 1,510 ( 34.9%) of the incorporated cities have households with
residents aged 65 years or older.
18% of Amador County’s population is 65 years of age or older. Comparatively, 10.6% of
California’s population and 12.4% of the U. S. population is 65 years of age or older.
► Amador County has one of the highest percentages of persons aged
65 years of age or older in the region ( 18%)
► The unincorporated county has 2,552 households headed by persons
aged 65 years of age or older. 93.8% of these households are owner­occupied
with the remaining 6.2% of these renter­occupied.
In
comparison 83.3% of the unincorporated county lives in owner­occupied
households with 16.2% living in renter­occupied
households.
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­5
Analysis
These organizations and their assessments of senior needs have provided invaluable
assistance in identifying senior needs with respect to housing, housing costs, care, home
maintenance and transportation needs.
The Area 12 Agency on Aging 2002 Needs Assessment further details the needs of seniors
in Amador County relative to housing costs, transportation and independent living ( see
following table):
Community Assessment of Senior Needs
Greatest strengths:
· The Jackson Senior Center and its programs
· The many organizations and support groups for seniors
Greatest challenges:
· Increasing cost of living and limited housing
· Seniors don’t have access to enough affordable in­home
and visitation care
· Current public transportation doesn’t provide evening routes
Key areas for community improvement:
· Development of transportation options that better meet the needs of youth
& seniors
· Increased study of in­home
& visitation care issues for seniors
Source: Amador County Voices for Families 2000 Community Assessment
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­6
Household Monthly Income for Seniors
Source: A12AA; 2002 Needs Assessment – Amador County
Unmarried Seniors
Monthly Income $ 0­$
610 $ 611­$
685 $ 686­$
770 $ 771­$
1,225 $ 1,226+ Total
Projected Gross Annual Income $ 0­$
7,320 $ 7,321­$
8,220 $ 8,221­$
9,240 $ 9,241­$
14,700 $ 14,700 and
above
# individuals surveyed
earning identified income
4 7 12 42 50 115
Maximum Housing Costs per
Year for Designated Income
$ 0­$
2,440 $ 2,441 to $ 2,740 $ 2,741­$
3,080 $ 3081­$
4,900 $ 4,901+
Maximum Housing Costs per
Month for Designated Income
$ 0­$
203.33 $ 203.34­$
228.33 $ 228.34­$
256.67 $ 256.68­$
408.33 $ 408.34 +
Married Seniors
Monthly Income $ 0­$
770 $ 771­$
970 $ 971­$
1,250 $ 1,251­$
1,500 $ 1,501 + Total
Projected Gross Annual Income $ 0 ­$
9,240 $ 9,241­$
11,640 $ 11,641­$
15,000 $ 15,001­$
18,000 $ 18,001 and
above
# individuals surveyed
earning identified income
2 3 11 15 66 97
Maximum Housing Costs per
Year for Designated Income
$ 0­$
3,080 $ 3081­$
3,880 $ 3881­$
5,000 $ 5001­$
6,000 $ 6001+
Maximum Housing Costs per
Month for Designated Income
$ 0­$
256.67 $ 256.68­$
323.33 $ 323.34­$
416.67 $ 416.68­$
500 $ 501+
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­7
Transportation:
Senior Transportation Use/ Needs Assessment
Amador County; A12AA 2002 Needs Assessment
Average age of respondent: 77.24
Answer # Individuals
Responding
Question A: What method of transportation do you use?
Drive yourself 180
Get rides from others 58
Walk 19
Public mass transit 16
Taxi ( self pay) 4
Other 0
Total 277
Question B: Are your transportation needs being met?
Yes 193
No 56
Total 249
Question C: If you don’t use public transportation, what
would encourage you to start using public transportation?
Assistance to appointments 48
Reasonable cost 37
Expanded hours 30
Not interested 8
Total 123
As indicated in the preceding table and consistent with the findings of Amador County
Voices for Families ( 2000), seniors and teens do not feel that public transportation is meeting
their transportation needs ( See Section VIII, Transportation, for additional details).
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­8
Independent Living for Seniors
Independent Living Needs Assessment
Amador County; A12AA 2002 Needs Assessment
Answer # Individuals Responding
Question A: To be able to continue living at home, what services would you
anticipate being most important to you?
Chore services ( housekeeping, yard) 144
Affordable Home Repair 97
Transportation 77
Shopping and Errands 69
Preparing Meals and Cleaning Up 62
Personal care ( Bathing, grooming, etc.) 29
Total 478
Question B: Because of a health condition, do you have difficulty going outside
the home alone, for example to shop or visit the doctor’s office?
Yes 49
No 200
Total 249
Question C: What problems do you face in receiving services to continue living
in your home?
None 118
Cost 66
Lack of information 41
Language barriers 0
Total 225
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­9
Independent Living Needs Assessment
Amador County; A12AA 2002 Needs Assessment
Answer # Individuals Responding
Question D:
In the near future do you anticipate moving to a senior housing complex, nursing
home facility or neither?
Neither 186
Senior Housing Complex 18
Nursing home facility 6
Total 210
Question E: Currently, what areas affect you the most. Please mark three boxes
that apply to you.
Enough money to live on 77
Affordable prescriptions 76
Affordable health care 69
Help in my home 58
Not being able to drive 46
Loneliness 38
Not having transportation 37
Affordable legal help 22
Being a victim of fraud 20
Being homebound 15
Not feeling safe at home 9
Getting sufficient food 7
Total 474
As indicated in the preceding tables, high­priority
senior needs in Amador County which
may be linked to housing issues, include:
· Transportation
· Housekeeping/ Yard Maintenance
· Affordable Home Repair
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­10
Housing Element Strategies to Address Senior Needs
In discussion with the county’s senior support organizations, the following strategies were
identified as appropriate for the county’s housing element in support of county seniors:
U Provide Opportunities for Establishing Tri­level
Living Communities
Encourage the establishment of and remove land use and zoning constraints for the
establishment of tri­level
living communities for seniors. Communities should
provide assisted living, unassisted living and nursing home opportunities within the
same community to allow married seniors to remain with their spouses and to allow
seniors to remain local and avoid major changes in living conditions and locations
throughout their lives. Development incentives should be included where such
communities provide senior housing for low and very­low
income seniors.
U Provide Opportunities for Cooperative Housing
Encourage the establishment of and remove land use and zoning constraints for the
establishment of cooperative housing communities for seniors and mixed age groups
( See Appendix B). These communities should provide opportunities for senior
independent living with assistance from the cooperative housing community.
Development incentives should be included where such communities provide senior
housing for low and very­low
income seniors.
U Seek Funding for Home Maintenance­Repair
Assistance/ Update Housing
Conditions Survey/ Consider Redevelopment
As indicated in the A12AA’s needs assessment, a significant percentage of the
county’s seniors worry that they will be unable to afford household repairs and
maintenance costs. Seniors also indicate the need for assistance in undertaking
maintenance and repair tasks on their homes. The county and the county’s senior
support agencies should pursue funding ( See Appendix A and Goals, Policies and
Implementation Programs, Section X) to assist in home repairs and maintenance for
low and very low income seniors. An update of the county’s housing conditions
assessment should include an evaluation of substandard or moderately deteriorated
homes occupied by seniors who could benefit from home maintenance and repair
assistance. Finally, as noted in other sections of this report, the county has identified
pockets of poverty. For those identified pockets, the county should investigate the
benefits of establishing redevelopment districts to assist in improving housing
conditions for seniors in those communities.
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­11
U Rental/ Homebuyer’s Assistance
As indicated in the A12AA’s needs assessment, many seniors are overpaying for
housing. The county, in cooperation with the county’s senior­support
organizations
should pursue funding ( See Appendix A and Goals, Policies and Implementation
Programs, Section X) which provides rental support for low and very low income
households. Similarly, funding should be sought for home­buyer
assistance
programs. Redevelopment could provide additional funds to supplement grants and
loans to support renters and homebuyers in meeting their housing needs.
U Appoint the Amador County Commission on Aging or Similar Organization to
Provide Recommendations to the County for Transportation
Schedules/ Routes/ Alternatives for Senior Transportation
Appoint a senior­support
agency and establish a time­line
for gathering input from
seniors and providing the Amador County Board of Supervisors and Amador County
Transportation Commission with a recommended strategy for addressing senior
public transportation needs. Input should address the potential benefits and costs of
instituting dial­a­ride,
establishing a volunteer driver program, addition of weekend
fixed routes, encouraging local businesses to provide grocery and prescription
delivery services, and other alternatives.
U Market program availability through existing county senior­support
organizations and senior centers
The availability of rental and home­buyer
assistance funds for seniors should be
“ advertised” at the county’s senior centers and through the county’s senior support
organizations. Similarly, input on proposed routes/ schedules/ alternatives for public
transportation for seniors should be designed with input from senior centers and
through the county’s senior support organizations.
Special Needs Households
Amador County

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
Amador County
2004­2009
Housing Element
( January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2009)
Adopted by the Amador County Board of Supervisors
May 10, 2005
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
Questions concerning this Housing Element may be directed to:
Augustine Planning Associates, Inc.
P. O. Box 3117
Sonora, CA 95370
( 209) 532­7376
landplan@ mlode. com
Table of Contents
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
i
Table of Contents Page
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ I­1
A. Requirements ........................................................................................................... I­1
B. Setting ..................................................................................................................... I­1
C. Purpose ................................................................................................................... I­4
II. Public Participation .................................................................................................. II­1
III. Executive Summary ................................................................................................. III­1
IV. Review of the 1992 Housing Element ..................................................................... IV­1
V. Analysis of Existing Conditions................................................................................ V­1
A. Population Characteristics............................................................................ V­1
1. Growth Trends ........................................................................................... V­1
2. Age & Gender of Population ...................................................................... V­6
3. Ethnicity of Population ............................................................................. V­11
4. Jobs/ Housing Balance............................................................................... V­15
B. Household Characteristics .......................................................................... V­25
1. Household Type, Size, Presence of Children............................................. V­25
2. Household Income & Housing Costs ........................................................ V­30
3. Overpayment ............................................................................................ V­34
4. Household Income Characteristics............................................................ V­40
5. Overcrowding........................................................................................... V­42
6. Group Quarters......................................................................................... V­43
C. Housing Characteristics .............................................................................. V­46
1. Housing Stock .......................................................................................... V­46
2. Housing Conditions .................................................................................. V­47
3. Occupancy & Vacancy Rates.................................................................... V­49
4. Owner/ Renter Occupation ........................................................................ V­50
VI. Special Needs Households........................................................................................ VI­1
A. Households 65 Years of Age and Older .......................................................... VI­1
B. Single Parent Heads of Households .............................................................. VI­12
C. The Disabled ................................................................................................ VI­15
D. Large Households......................................................................................... VI­18
E. The Homeless............................................................................................... VI­19
F. Farm Workers .............................................................................................. VI­21
G. Poverty......................................................................................................... VI­23
Table of Contents
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
ii
VII. Projected Needs....................................................................................................... VII­1
A. Regional ( County­wide)
Needs...................................................................... VII­1
B. Housing Needs by Income Group.................................................................. VII­1
VIII. Resource Inventory............................................................................................... VIII­1
A. Land Suitable for Residential Development ( Parcel Inventory).................... VIII­1
B. Assisted Developments/ At­Risk
Developments ......................................... VIII­22
C. Housing Programs ( Existing)..................................................................... VIII­23
D. Energy Conservation ................................................................................. VIII­24
IX. Housing Constraints ................................................................................................ IX­1
A. Governmental..................................................................................................... IX­1
1. General Plan................................................................................................... IX­1
2. Zoning .......................................................................................................... . IX­9
3. Permit and Processing Procedures ................................................................ IX­31
4. Constraints: Special Needs Housing/ Reasonable Accommodation............... IX­35
5. Building Codes & Enforcement.................................................................... IX­46
6. Process and Policy for Substandard Units and Rehabilitation........................ IX­49
7. Development Fees ........................................................................................ IX­49
8. Infrastructure................................................................................................ IX­52
B. Non­Governmental
Constraints ...................................................................... IX­57
X. Housing Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs ......................................... X­1
XI. Housing Implementation Plan­5
Year Schedule and Action Plan
Government Code Section 65583( c) ........................................................................ XI­1
Table of Contents
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
iii
XII. Appendices.............................................................................................................. XII­1
A. Potential Funding Sources ..................................................................................... A­1
B. Weatherization Programs........................................................................................ B­1
C. Cooperative Housing/ Co­Housing
.......................................................................... C­1
D. Second Unit Ordinance ......................................................................................... D­1
E. Fee Comparisons .................................................................................................... E­1
F. Health & Safety Code and Welfare and Institutions Code Citations......................... F­1
G. Development Standards for Residential Uses in Zoning Districts Allowing
Housing ................................................................................................................ G­1
H. Agricultural Land in Amador County .................................................................... H­1
I. Model Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance........................................................ I­1
XIII. Glossary................................................................................................. XIII/ Glossary­1
Introduction
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 I­1
4. Housing
I. Introduction
A. Requirements
Government Code Sections 65302 and 65580 through 65588 requires local jurisdictions to
prepare and implement a plan for providing affordable housing that:
! Identifies and analyzes existing and projected housing needs;
! Analyzes population and employment trends in relation to the locality= s existing and
projected housing needs for all income levels;
! Analyzes household characteristics and housing stock conditions;
! Inventories adequate sites for housing, including vacant sites and sites having the
potential for redevelopment with an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public
services to these sites;
! Analyzes governmental and non­governmental
constraints upon maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels;
! Analyzes special housing needs for the handicapped, elderly and persons in need of
emergency shelter;
! Analyzes opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential
development;
! Addresses preservation of subsidized housing units
B. Setting
Amador County was established in 1854 and is located in the Central Sierra. Elevations
range from 200’ in the western portion of the county to more than 9000’ in the eastern
portions of the county.
Introduction
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 I­2
Vicinity Map: Amador County
Amador County includes five incorporated cities:
· Amador City
· Ione
· Jackson
· Plymouth
· Sutter Creek
Introduction
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 I­3
Unincorporated Communities
in Amador County
Western Amador County Eastern Amador County
Buckhorn
Buena Vista
Drytown
Fiddletown
Martell
Pine Grove
Pioneer
River Pines
Sutter Hill
Kirkwood ( portion)
Introduction
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 I­4
C. Purpose
The purpose of this Housing Element is intended to meet the requirements of HCD= s 2004­2009
planning cycle and to reflect the housing needs of the unincorporated Amador County
population ( i. e., excluding the county’s five incorporated cities and including the county’s
unincorporated communities) pursuant to the 2000 Federal Census.
Public Participation
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 II­1
II. Public Participation
The following agencies and individuals contributed to the development of the 2004­2009
Housing Element:
Amador Affordable Housing Coalition
Attended first meeting of the coalition July 22, 2003 and a follow­up
meeting on
September 23, 2003. County representatives attended subsequent meetings of the
coalition. Members were urged to become involved in the preparation and review of the
housing element and to attend public hearings in support of programs embraced by the
coalition. Coalition assisted the county in identifying contacts for issues related to
special needs households, economic development and similar issues. The coalition
provided input regarding inclusionary ordinances ( pros and cons) and discussed the
county’s successes and failures in providing affordable housing.
Amador County Association of Realtors
Bob Wynn – Phone interview August 18, 2003. Provided current statistics on the average
value of homes being sold in the county, the volume of homes being sold in the county
and land sale data.
Amador County Building Department
Dawn Schaaf, Building Permit Technician; telephone interview August 18, 2003.
Discussed use of State Historic Building Code; areas in the county in which most permits
are issued; numbers of new homes constructed versus numbers of permits issued.
Amador County Commission on Aging
Thelma Clancy, phone interview, August 18, 2003. Topics included a discussion of
senior needs in Amador County related primarily to housing and transportation; the need
for tri­level
care facilities; expanded public transportation opportunities; avoiding the
creation of “ senior ghettos,” and the desire of seniors to live below the snow line.
Amador County Department of Health & Human Services
Tracy Russell, Director; telephone interview August 25, 2003. Referral to A­TCAA,
Beetle Barbour, for information.
Amador County Land Use Agency
Gary Clark, Director ( retired)– discussions throughout preparation of Housing Element
including past programs, anticipated future programs, county needs, county resources,
development constraints, optimal locations for future housing developments, and similar
Public Participation
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 II­2
topics. Provided outline of goals, policies and implementation programs and outline of
housing element update.
Amador County Land Use Agency ­Planning
Department ( Zoning Enforcement)
Steve Branco, August 18, 2003 phone interview. Discussed zoning enforcement in
Amador County. Primary housing­related
violations including illegal trailers.
Discussed enforcement officer familiarity with Health & Safety Code Section 17995.3 as
it pertains to the HCD definition of “ Rehabilitation.”
Amador County Transportation Commission
Charles Field, telephone interview August 16, 2003. Discussed lack of non­motorized
transportation facilities contained in Regional Transportation Plan and changes in the
RTP since its last publication.
Amador County Voices for Families
Amanda Bohl, meeting, San Andreas, May 15, 2003 with Beetle Barbour ( A­TCAA)
and
Ms. Bohl; review of Amador County Community Assessment 2000/ Amador County
Voices for Families and discussion of special needs populations deficiencies and
programs.
Amador County Waste Management
Dennis Grady, telephone interview August 16, 2003. Discussed locations of facilities,
capacity of facilities, county needs, and availability of recycling opportunities throughout
the county.
Amador Water Agency
Gene Mancebo, Chief Engineer, phone interview on August 16, 2003 and September 15,
2003. Discussed pending agency plans to expand water and wastewater service and the
pending needs of the agency necessary to facilitate expansion of infrastructure to serve
housing; discussed locations where infrastructure can be readily and economically
accessed by housing developments versus locations where infrastructure expansion
would be more costly; discussed current fees and anticipated fees. Discussed
infrastructure funding.
Amador Economic Development Corporation
Ron Mittelbrunn, Executive Director, Phone interview September 9, 2003. Discussed
current efforts by the EDC to attract living wage jobs to the county; specific projects and
approaches which could be used to attract living wage jobs; economic development
statistics applicable to the county. Provided Amador County Business Retention,
Expansion and Attraction Study, Final Report – 1997 ( Applied Development
Public Participation
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 II­3
Economics). Discussed Sierra Business Council Sierra Nevada Wealth Index.
Amador Regional Rapid Transit
Patrick Ireland, telephone interview August 16, 2003. Discussed new transit
development plan.
Amador Senior Services, Inc.
Phone interview September 16, 2003, with Fred Joyce. Discussed activities and support
services available at the center and funding for the center.
Amador­Tuolumne
Community Action Agency­Shelter
Program
Margaret “ Beetle” Barbour, interview April 30, 2003 and June 12, 2003­Shelter
Program
Manager. Topics: Homeless, chronically mentally ill, single mothers, victims of
domestic violence, formation of the Amador Affordable Housing Coalition.
Amador­Tuolumne
Community Action Agency – Weatherization Program
Pete Grahmbeek, Director, Weatherization Program. Phone interview September 15,
2003; discussed programs, volume of applicants for assistance, methods used to identify
qualified households, outlook for future funding.
Area 12 Agency on Aging
Torie Carlson, Planner; August 18, 2003, phone interview. Discussed Senior Needs
Assessment prepared by this agency and requested copy for inclusion in the Housing
Element.
Central Sierra Planning Council ( CSPC)
The county participated, at the invitation of Executive Director Larry Busby, in the April
1, 2003, meeting with the California Department of Housing and Community
Development in conjunction with the preparation of the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation ( RHNA) Plan by the Central Sierra Planning Council. The county attended
the May 7, 2003, CSPC board meeting to urge board members to adopt the draft RHNA.
CSPC also provided updates on Section 8 vouchers in Amador County and provided
input on the potential for increasing the allocation in that county. Marilyn Dungan of
CSPC provided an overview of the county’s First­Time
Homebuyer’s Program which
began in 2002 and identified potential constraints related to the implementation of this
program.
Habitat for Humanity
Frank Meyer, Calaveras County Habitat for Humanity, phone interview September 16,
2003. There are no plans to expand to Amador County at this time.
Public Participation
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05 II­4
City of Jackson Planning Department
Mike Daly, City Manager, phone interview September 16, 2003. Discussed status of
affordable housing projects in the City of Jackson, status of the city’s inclusionary
ordinance, and status of pending projects.
Valley Mountain Regional Center ( VMRC)
Jackie Maier, phone interview, September 16, 2003. Discussed current level of service
and service needs for developmentally disabled in Amador County.
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­1
III. Executive Summary
The Atypical@ Amador County resident has a median age of 42.7 years old, is female, earns a
median income for a family of four of $ 56,000, is living in a single­family
residential
structure built in 1977 and is one of 19,919 individuals residing within the unincorporated
area of the county in the year 2000. To meet the needs of this “ typical” Amador County
resident and all other residents of the unincorporated county, now and in the future, the
county has prepared this 2004­2009
Housing Element.
Amador County anticipates that 946 residential units will be necessary to fill the County’s
housing needs for the planning period of 2004 to 2009. Three hundred ninety­one
of these
units are needed to house low and very low income households. The Central Sierra Planning
Council Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan estimates that Amador County will need
the following number of housing units through July 1, 2009:
Projected Housing Needs
By Income Group
Amador County 2001­2009
Median Family Income ( Family of 4): $ 51,226
Median Household Income: $ 42,280
Income Group
( Gross Annual Wage­Family
of 4)
New Units Needed
By 2009/ a/
Very low
($ 28,000­$
44,799)
231
Low
($ 44,800­$
55,999)
160
Moderate
($ 56,000 – $ 67,199)
177
Above Moderate
($ 67,200 and above)
378
Total 946
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­2
Public Participation
The draft housing element was produced with input from the following agencies and
organizations:
· Amador Affordable Housing Coalition
· Amador County Association of Realtors
· Amador County Building Department
· Amador County Commission On Aging
· Amador County Department of Health & Human Services
· Amador County Land Use Agency
· Amador County Transportation Commission
· Amador County Voices for Families
· Amador County Waste Management
· Amador Water Agency
· Amador Economic Development Corporation
· Amador Regional Rapid Transit
· Amador Senior Services, Inc. ( Senior Center)
· Amador­Tuolumne
Community Action Agency
· Area 12 Agency on Aging
· Central Sierra Planning Council
· Habitat for Humanity
· City of Jackson Planning Department
· Valley Mountain Regional Center
Additional input shall be gathered throughout the public review process for this element.
1992 Housing Element
Many of the programs identified in the 1992 Housing Element were unfulfilled due largely to
economic ups and downs. High volumes of building permits followed by a drop in the
economy thwarted the best efforts of the county to provide substantial inroads towards
meeting its housing goals.
Significant among the accomplishments of the county during the planning period were:
· The rezoning of several strategically located vacant parcels for multi­family
residential use
· The consolidation of multiple permitting agencies into a single Land Use Agency
thereby facilitating permit processing
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­3
Existing Conditions
Demographics
Growth Rate
The county should expect a growth rate of approximately 2% through 2009 with a projected
increase in the population of the unincorporated county from 20,500 to 23,953.
Age
The county’s median age of 42.7 is 9.1 years older than the median age for the state.
Seniors
Amador County has the highest percentage of its total population aged 65 years of age or
older ( 18%) in the region. Amador County’s senior population composes a larger percentage
of the overall county population than Alpine, Calaveras, El Dorado, Mariposa, Mono, Placer
or Tuolumne Counties.
Ethnicity
Statistics indicate that one in ten Amador County residents will be Hispanic by the year 2005.
Jobs/ Housing Balance
The gap between wages and housing costs and availability continues to widen. To afford a
three­bedroom
housing unit working 40 hours per week, an individual would have to be paid
at least $ 16.85 per hour without paid holidays or sick leave.
Household Characteristics
Two types of households exist: family households ( with individuals who are related to the
head of the household) and non­family
households ( including persons living alone or with
unrelated individuals).
The average size of families is higher than the county average in and around the cities of Ione
and Plymouth. This is largely due to the presence of Hispanic or Latino populations
associated with the Mule Creek Prison ( Ione) and farm workers seeking employment in the
expanding wine grape industry ( in and around Plymouth).
The number of female­single­parent
households more than doubled between 1990 and 2000.
The percentage of married couples in the county has declined by 6%.
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­4
Housing Characteristics
Housing Costs
Housing costs continue to increase without a corresponding increase in the county’s median
wage. The average sale price of a two bedroom home in Amador County in 2002 was
$ 164,878. The median income for a family of three will purchase a home of approximately
$ 126,000, leaving an affordability gap of approximately $ 38,100.
Seventy­three
percent of homeowners paying more than 30% of their gross income ( i. e.,
overpaying for housing) are living in the unincorporated area of the county.
The majority of renters overpaying are concentrated in the incorporated cities of the county.
Household Income Characteristics
The largest concentration of very low income households occurs in and around Jackson, Ione
and Plymouth.
Overcrowding
Overcrowded households have increased nearly 20% since 1990.
Housing Stock
1.5% of the county’s housing units are classified as substantially deteriorated or dilapidated.
The median year of construction for a structure in Amador County is 1977. Amador City has
the oldest median for its structures— the median year of construction there is 1939.
Occupancy/ Owners versus Renters
The vacancy rate for homes in the county is virtually unchanged since 1990. Owners
continue to outnumber renters by a ratio of nearly 3: 1.
Special Needs Households
Seniors
Amador County has the highest percentage of its total population aged 65 years of age or
older ( 18%) in the region.
Single parent heads of households
The majority of single­parent
households living below the poverty level reside in the
unincorporated area of the county.
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­5
Disabled
The majority of those disabled in the county have a physical disability. The next most
common disabilities in the county are those which interfere with employment and disabilities
which prevent individuals from leaving their homes.
Large Households
Ione and Plymouth have the highest concentration of large households. This is attributed to
concentrations of ethnic populations which traditionally have more persons within a
household than the county average.
Homeless
One of the primary causes of homelessness is domestic violence. While the county’s calls
for assistance are consistently lower than the state’s; the arrest rate for domestic violence in
the county is comparable to California’s.
Farm workers
Farm worker populations are expected to increase in the county with corresponding increases
in the county’s standing acreage in vineyards.
Poverty
While the county has a smaller percentage of its population living in poverty than does the
state; pockets of poverty clearly exist throughout the county.
Resources Inventory
Land Availability
Existing vacant and under­developed
land zoned for multi­family
use in the unincorporated
area of the county potentially could support 1,117 residential units at the existing county
density allowance of 18 units per acre. The element proposes an increase in the 18 unit/ acre
density ( to 25 units per acre) which would result in a corresponding increase in the potential
number of housing units that the county could support.
At­Risk
Units
The unincorporated county has no subsidized housing units ( those built with state or federal
assistance).
Existing Housing Programs
In addition to ongoing rental assistance ( Section 8 vouchers), the county began a first­time
home buyer program in 2002.
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­6
Energy Conservation
The Amador­Tuolumne
Community Action Agency continues to be the primary source of
funds used to assist low­income
households in reducing their energy bills.
The Amador County Transportation Commission is currently in the process of updating the
county’s regional transportation plan. Support for non­motorized
transportation facilities
( e. g., bike paths and sidewalks) over short distances and linking together homes, schools and
shopping could assist low­income
households in further reducing their energy bills.
Constraints
The removal of land use constraints ( e. g., requirements for special permits for various uses)
is one of the most economical and efficient means by which county government can assist in
the development of affordable housing. This element places an emphasis on removing
governmental constraints as necessary to encourage the construction of affordable housing
throughout the county.
Many constraints are outside of the direct control of county government. The expansion of
water and wastewater facilities sufficient to serve development continues to be one of the
primary deterrents to the development of affordable housing.
Implementation Programs: Highlights
A few of the unique programs proposed in this element to encourage the provision of
affordable housing in the county include:
· Designating land within the existing spheres of influence of cities to Special
Planning­Residential
thereby increasing the availability of land in close proximity to
water and wastewater facilities necessary for residential construction.
· Increasing the maximum density for multiple family land uses from 18 units per acre
to 25 units per acre.
· Pursuing establishment of a housing task force for the purpose of consolidating all of
the jurisdictions in the county under a single, coordinated plan for providing
affordable housing.
· Consideration of Cooperative Housing Developments ( See Appendix C).
· Preparation of a Business Attraction/ Expansion Study aimed at encouraging moderate
wage jobs.
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­7
· Evaluating the potential benefits of a redevelopment agency in encouraging economic
growth in certain portions of the county.
· Consideration of amendments to the zoning code to facilitate the provision of child
care facilities and emergency and transitional shelters.
· Encouraging the development of “ tri­level”
communities for seniors ( i. e.,
communities providing alternative levels of assisted living from fully independent
living to drop­in
assistance and including full nursing care alternatives) to allow
seniors to remain with or near their spouses without undertaking major moves and life
changes throughout their lives.
Executive Summary
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
III­8
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­1
IV. Review of the 1992 Housing Element
The 1992 Amador County Housing Element was adopted on January 19, 1993, by the
Amador County Board of Supervisors. The element identified numerous programs to
address the housing needs of Amador County. An analysis of those programs follows:
Affordable Housing Task Force Committee ( AHTFC)
The 1992 element called for the formation of an affordable housing task force committee to
identify and contact potential developers of affordable housing to determine how the county
could best assist them in developing low cost housing.
This program was not implemented. A significant increase in building permit volume began
in 1992 resulting in a reorganization of county departments to handle the increased work
load. This was followed by a sharp economic downturn in which hiring freezes and layoffs
occurred in county departments. In short, lack of staff and lack of funding eliminated the
potential for this program to proceed.
Identifying Constraints
The AHTFC was charged with identifying constraints to the development of affordable
housing and preparing a report to the Board of Supervisors and five City Councils with
recommendations for removing constraints.
The AHTFC was charged with identifying sites in the County appropriate for development of
low cost housing and identifying agencies or developers with the potential and resources to
work with the county to development and maintain housing.
As noted previously, the AHTFC was not formed. However, the Planning Department, in
cooperation with the landowner, took the initiative to rezone and actively market a large,
multi­family
parcel in a prime location in the county. All environmental documentation was
completed for the property. Building permits were the only entitlement necessary from the
county for a developer to commence constructing affordable housing at a density of 18 units
per acre. Unfortunately, potential developers of the site found that other cities and counties
were more competitive than Amador County in obtaining state and federal funding assistance
for the construction of affordable housing projects.
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­2
Review Impact Fees
The AHTFC was charged with reviewing the county’s impact mitigation fees and identifying
those which could be waived for housing projects serving low and moderate income
households. The Board of Supervisors would respond with a draft ordinance proposing the
waiver of certain impact fees.
In reviewing potential mitigation fees, the Planning Department determined that existing fees
were minimal— especially in comparison to other jurisdictions. More importantly, most
mitigation fees are not under the control of the county ( e. g., water fees, traffic impact
mitigation fees). As a result, it was determined that implementation of this program would
not result in a tangible incentive to attract affordable housing to the county.
Second Dwelling Units
The 1992 Housing Element called for reconsideration of Board policy relative to allowing
second dwelling units on a single parcel of land.
The county adopted major changes to its second dwelling unit policy with the adoption of
ordinances in 1997, 2000, and 2001. The new standards for second dwellings are contained
in the Amador County Zoning Code, Section 19.48.120 ( see Appendix D). In brief, second
unit regulations in the county are consistent with those required under legislation which
became effective in January and July, 2003.
Jobs/ Housing Balance
The Planning Department was charged with drafting an ordinance requiring all new
commercial, industrial and large residential development projects to address the jobs/ housing
balance prior to/ in conjunction with project approvals.
This program was not implemented through the adoption of an ordinance. This program was
instead implemented through the application of the California Environmental Quality Act.
During the 1992 planning cycle; the issue of the county’s jobs and housing balance came to
the forefront when the county lost its largest employer ( the Georgia­Pacific
Mill employing
600­800
employees). Since the closure of the mill, located in Martell, Amador County and
the Amador County Economic Development Corporation have been actively working with
landowners to “ redevelop” the former mill site for the economic benefit of the county. The
location of housing for employees on lands adjacent to the site has become a primary
consideration in future plans for the site.
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­3
Streamlined Permitting Process
The County Technical Advisory Committee was directed to develop a streamlined permit
procedure to reduce processing time and increase processing efficiency.
Due to the low volume of new development applications received in the county, applications
are processed quickly in Amador County. The implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) was identified as the primary contributor to time­constraints
in the planning process. Therefore, during the planning period, the Planning
Department adopted local county CEQA guidelines to assist in facilitating the
implementation of CEQA in Amador County.
In addition, in 1994, the county undertook a reorganization of county departments. The
newly­formed
Amador County Land Use Agency consolidated multiple permit­issuing
agencies ( Environmental Health, Building and Planning) under a single entity which has
assisted in coordinated permit reviews and in streamlining the permitting process.
Quantified Objectives
The 1992 Housing Element adopted the following objectives and charged that all county
departments should assist the county and individuals in meeting these objectives by July,
1997, within the realm of their appointed duties:
U Construct 1,829 new housing units in the unincorporated county
U 714 of the 1,829 units should be occupied by low and very low income
families
U Rehabilitate 70 housing units for low and very low income households
U Conserve 9 housing units for low and very low income households
The Planning Department was assigned the duty of reporting annually to the planning
commission on the county’s progress in meeting its housing goals pursuant to the element by
monitoring census data, building permits and population estimates.
The County= s Building Department reports that 889 building permits were issued for single­family
dwellings during the five­year
planning period. Historically, the number of building
permits issued for new single­family
homes is as follows:
1980­1985:
1,138
1986­1991:
1,439 ( 1,347)
1992­1997:
889
1997­2002:
746
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­4
Through 1986, the county continued to issue building permits for some of the county’s
incorporated cities. As a result, statistics pertaining to total permits issued for new homes in
the unincorporated county through 1986 are inflated. Removing 1986 statistics from 1986­1991
totals reveals that a minimum of 1,255 building permits for new single­family
homes
were issued within the unincorporated county between 1986 and 1991. Assuming that
approximately 50% of permits issued for new single­family
homes in 1986 were located in
the unincorporated county, it is projected that a total of 1,347 building permits were issued
for new single­family
residents in the unincorporated county between 1986 and 1991— by far
the largest increase in single­family
residential growth in the unincorporated county in the
past twenty years.
Given historical trends indicating slower growth than projected in the 1992 Housing
Element, it is clear that the 1992 Element goal of adding 1,829 new housing units in the
unincorporated county was based on expectations of unprecedented population and
economic growth which did not materialize. Therefore, the adopted objectives were overly
aggressive.
CDBG Housing Rehab Program/ Housing Conditions Survey
The County shall continue to seek assistance from the Central Sierra Planning Council
toward expanding the County’s CDBG housing rehab program and shall continue to maintain
the CDBG­funded
housing rehab account. The County shall have a housing condition survey
conducted to identify housing in need of rehabilitation.
The county currently has $ 87,836.25 ( 9/ 15/ 03) in CDBG re­use
funds which could be made
available for rehabilitations. However, a formal rehabilitation program is not currently in
effect in the county. The county began a first­time
homebuyers program in 2002 with CDBG
funding and has already closed one loan with four pending. The Central Sierra Planning
Council notes that the high cost of housing and limited housing stock on the market is
creating challenges for the successful implementation of the first­time
homebuyers program.
CDBG Funds for Acquiring Sites/ Subsidizing Low Cost Housing
The County shall investigate the feasibility of obtaining CDBG grants for acquiring sites or
otherwise subsidizing low cost housing.
This program was not implemented. The Planning Department has determined that permit
fees are low and development standards are not a deterrent to the development of affordable
housing ( See Constraints Analysis, Section IX, in this document). As discussed above, when
the county took the initiative to rezone and actively market a large, multi­family
parcel in a
prime location in the county, conducted all environmental reviews and required only
building permits for the construction of affordable housing at a density of 18 units per acre,
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­5
potential developers found that they were unable to secure necessary funding­­other
cities
and counties were more competitive than Amador County in obtaining state and federal
funding assistance for the construction of affordable housing projects.
Density Bonuses
Density bonuses shall be granted to developments with 20% low income units or 10% very
low income units or 50% senior units pursuant to Government Code Section 65915.
A lack of development applications has limited opportunities for granting density bonuses in
Amador County. A single subdivision applied for the bonus, was granted a density bonus,
and then found that it could not afford the project due to on­site
sewage disposal costs. The
project was down­sized
and re­structured
to serve moderate income households.
Infrastructure costs continue to be a significant roadblock to the development of affordable
housing in Amador County and are addressed in this 2004 Update.
Mitigation for Impacts of Commercial, Industrial, Residential
The county may require larger commercial industrial or residential projects to mitigate
impacts on the affordable housing market by including affordable housing in the project;
paying affordable housing impact fees; or a combination of the two.
This program was not implemented. A lack of applications for development projects
rendered implementation of this program moot.
Review/ Update General Plan
Designate High Density Land Uses ( Policy)
Continue to designate appropriate sites on the Amador County Land Use Element Land Use
Map for high density multi­family
residential projects.
The Planning Department shall review the General Plan Land Use Element and County
Zoning Ordinance and recommend appropriate land use designation/ zones in which to allow
emergency shelters and transitional housing in the county. The Board shall adopt
amendments as determined appropriate to allow said uses.
These two programs were implemented in conjunction with the county’s 1994 update of the
General Plan Land Use Plan which divided the county into eight study areas and increased
the amount of multi­family
land available for development of affordable housing.
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­6
Priority to Existing County Residents ( Policy)
Provide first priority for occupancy of government assisted low cost housing to households
who can prove existing county residency.
This policy was not implemented and has been eliminated as potentially discriminatory.
Waive Building and Inspection Fees ( Policy)
Waive building permit and inspection fees for the rehabilitation of substandard units
occupied by low income senior citizens.
No development projects qualifying for this waiver were submitted during the planning
period ( i. e., there were no building permit applications for qualifying rehabilitations,
therefore, no waivers were granted).
Coordination with Cities ( Policy)
Work with the county’s incorporated cities toward mutual attainment of regional housing
needs.
In preparation for the preparation of the update of this Housing Element; the cities and
county formed a joint task force in 2002 to discuss city/ county housing issues. City
managers, City planners, and Land Use Agency personnel discussed the potential for
preparing a consolidated/ joint housing element for all of incorporated and unincorporated
Amador County. This task force was prompted by input from Central Sierra Planning
Council that it would be unable to prepare the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the
region. When CSPC determined that it would, after all, be able to produce the document, the
task force was abandoned. Amador County would support re­forming
the joint task force
should cities indicate a willingness to pursue a regional housing element.
Funding Water/ Sewer System Improvement Projects
The Board of Supervisors and County Water Resources Department, in coordination with the
Amador Water Agency, shall continue to pursue funding sources to finance match money
needed to obtain grants for water and sewer system improvements.
The entities have continued to pursue funding for various water and wastewater improvement
projects. Projects have included system upgrades in Fiddletown and River Pines.
Fair Housing Law – Public Education
The Amador County Planning Department and Building Department shall have available
printed information on fair housing laws for distribution to the public upon request.
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­7
This program was implemented. Fair Housing Laws are available for public review at the
county land use agency.
Referral of Housing Complaints to the Fair Housing Authority for Amador County
The county shall continue to refer housing complaints to the Amador­Tuolumne
Community
Action Agency— the Fair Housing Authority for Amador County.
There were no housing complaints received during the planning period.
Maintain Consistency Between the Housing Element and Other General Plan Elements
Upon final adoption of the 1992 Housing Element and of any future amendments to the
element, the Amador County Planning Director shall review other elements for consistency
and recommend amendments as necessary to maintain consistency.
This legal mandate was implementing during the preparation of the 1994 update of the Land
Use Element of the General Plan. Upon adoption of this 2004 Update, any general plan
amendments necessary for consistency shall be adopted.
Review of the 1992 Housing Element
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
IV­8
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­1
V. Analysis of Existing Conditions
A. Population Characteristics
1. Growth Trends
Historical Population Growth 1854­2000
Amador County ( Established 1854)
Change from Year Population Preceding Census Year
# Persons 10 Yr.
% Change
Gross Annual
Growth Rate
1854 n/ a ­­­­­­1860
10,930 ­­­­­­1870
9,582 ­1,348
­12.3%
­1.2%
1880 11,384 + 1,802 + 18.8% 1.9%
1890 10,320 ­1,064
­9.3%
­0.9%
1900 11,116 + 796 + 7.7% 0.8%
1910 9,086 ­2,030
­18.3%
­1.8%
1920 7,793 ­1,293
­14.2%
­1.4%
1930 8,494 + 701 + 9.0% 0.9%
1940 8,973 + 479 + 5.6% 0.6%
1950 9,151 + 178 + 2.0% 0.2%
1960 9,990 + 839 + 9.2% 0.9%
1970 11,821 + 1,831 + 18.3% 1.8%
1980 19,314 + 7,493 + 63.4% 6.3%
1990 30,039 + 10,725 + 55.5% 5.6%
2000 35,100 + 5,061 + 16.8% 1.7%
2002 36,050 + 950 ­­2003
36,500 + 450 ­­1.2%
Source: Historical Census Populations of Places, Towns and Cities in California, 1850­1990;
California
Department of Finance
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­2
County/ City Comparison
The 15,181 persons living in the county’s incorporated cities are dispersed as follows:
Population in
Incorporated Cities in Amador County
City Population ( 2000)
Amador 201
Ione 7214/ a/
Jackson 4467
Plymouth 957
Sutter Creek 2342
Total Incorporated Population 15,181
/ a/ Population includes 3,650 inmates at Mule Creek Prison, built in 1985
► Unincorporated
19,919 individuals, or 56.7% of
Amador County’s Residents live in
the unincorporated county
► Incorporated
15,181 individuals, or 43.3%, live
within the county’s incorporated
cities
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­3
Analysis
As indicated in the preceding tables, population growth in the county has fluctuated widely
from a ­1.8%
annual percentage decline to a 6.3% annual percentage increase. The State
Department of Finance is projecting an annual growth rate of 2.9% countywide based on an
increase in the number of single­family
residential homes added to the county over the past
two years.
However, based on historical growth trends, including the most recent 1.7% annual growth
rate recorded for the county between 1990 and 2000; it is unlikely that the annual growth rate
for the unincorporated county will reach 2.9%.
This conclusion is supported by 1990­2000
population growth statistics for the incorporated
cities. These statistics clearly illustrate that population growth for Amador County is
occurring primarily in its incorporated cities­­in
particular, in the cities of Plymouth and
Sutter Creek.
Population Change 1990­2000
Amador County
Jurisdiction 1990
Population
2000
Population
Numeric
Change
Percent
Change
Annual
Percent
Change
Amador City 196 196 0 0.0 0.0
Ione 6,516 7,129 613 9.4 0.9
Jackson 3,545 3,989 444 12.5 1.3
Plymouth 811 980 169 20.8 2.1
Sutter Creek 1,835 2,303 468 25.5 2.6
Unincorporated 17,136 20,503 3,367 19.6 2.0
Amador County Total 30,039 35,100 5061 16.8 1.7
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­4
Population Change 2002­2003
Amador County
Jurisdiction 2002
Population
2003
Population
Numeric
Change
Annual Percent
Change
Amador City 210 210 0 0.0
Ione 7,450 7,450 0 0.0
Jackson 4,020 4,060 40 1.0
Plymouth 1,030 1,070 40 3.9
Sutter Creek 2,370 2,440 70 3.0
Unincorporated 20,970 21,270 300 1.4
Amador County Total 36,050 36,500 450 1.2
As indicated in the preceding tables, the cities of Plymouth and Sutter Creek are expected to
lead the county in population growth through the planning period.
► The unincorporated county is expected to realize a 2% annual
growth rate through 2009 in comparison to the overall county annual
growth rate of 2.9%.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­5
Projected Population Growth
Amador County: 2005 – 2020
Year
Incorporated +
Unincorporated
County/ a/
Unincorporated
County
Low Projection
( 1.7%)
Unincorporated
County
Moderate Projection
( 2.0%)
Unincorporated
County
High Projection
( 2.9%)
2004 ­­21,632
21,696 21,887
2005 35,400 22,000 22,129 22,522
2006 22,374 22,572 23,175
2007 22,754 23,023 23,847
2008 23,143 23,483 24,539
2009 37,235 23,536 23,953 25,251
2010 37,600 23,936 24,432 25,983
2015 40,300 25,971 26,875 29,751
2020 41,300 28,178 29,563 34,065
/ a/ California Department of Finance Projections
► The unincorporated county population is projected to be between
23,536 and 25,251 in 2009 for the purposes of this element.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­6
2. Age and Gender of Population
Population by Age Group
Amador County 2000 ­Incorporated
+ Unincorporated
Median Age: 42.7 Years Old
Age of Population Population
Totals
% of Population
Under 5 1,478 4.2
5­9
1,848 5.3
10­14
2,189 6.2
15­19
2,689 7.7
Subtotal 0­19
8,204 23.4
20­24
1,457 4.2
25­34
3,486 9.9
35­44
5,707 16.2
Subtotal 20­44
10,650 30.3
45­54
5,678 16.2
55­59
2,204 6.3
60­64
2,035 5.8
Subtotal 45­64
9,917 28.3
65­74
3,453 9.8
75­84
2,231 6.4
85 and Over 645 1.8
Subtotal 65+ 6,329 18.0
Totals 35,100 100
U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000 Summary file
Amador County, DP­1
Profile of General Demographic Characteristics
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­7
County/ City/ State Comparison – Median Age
In comparison to the total county population’s median age of 42.7 years old, the median ages
of the residents within the county’s incorporated areas are:
City Median Age
Amador 41.5
Ione 34.3
Jackson 46.6
Plymouth 39.1
Sutter Creek 45.3
The comparatively low median age of individuals living in Ione is attributed to the presence
of a state prison in that city. The median age for the state is 33.6 years.
► The county’s median age of 42.7 years is 9.1 years older than the
state median.
► The county’s 42.7 year median age is between 3.9 and 8.4 years older
than the median age of residents in the incorporated county.
County/ City/ State/ Regional Comparisons: 65 Years of Age and Older
Households with One or More
Individuals 65 Years of Age or Older
Jurisdiction Total Households with
One or more resident 65
years of age or older
% of Total Households
County ( unincorporated) 2,802 33%
Amador City 23 27%
Ione City 277 26%
Jackson City 698 40%
Plymouth City 128 33%
Sutter Creek City 384 37%
Total 4,312
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­8
18% of the Amador County’s total population is age 65 years or older. Comparatively,
10.6% of California’s population and 12.4% of the U. S. population is 65 years of age or
older. In neighboring counties, the population 65 years of age and older is as follows:
Alpine 6.8%
Calaveras 14.0%
El Dorado 9.8%
Mariposa 14.9%
Mono 4.7%
Placer 8.2%
Tuolumne 14.7%
► Amador County has the highest percentage ( 18%) of its total
population aged 65 years of age or older in the region.
This emphasizes the necessity for addressing the needs of seniors in this housing element.
Section V of this element describes those needs and proposals for filling them.
County/ City/ State/ Regional Comparisons: Under 18 Years of Age
Households with Individuals 18 Years of Age and Younger
Jurisdiction Total Households with
One or more resident 18
years of age or younger
% of Total Households
County ( unincorporated) 2,370 28%
Amador City 21 25%
Ione City 412 38%
Jackson City 463 27%
Plymouth City 139 35%
Sutter Creek City 286 28%
Total 3,691
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­9
20.5% of Amador County’s total population is under 18 years of age. This is similar to the
27.3% of California’s population and 25.7% of the U. S. population under 18 years of age. In
neighboring counties, the population under 18 years of age ranges from a low of 16.4% in
Placer County to a high of 26% in El Dorado County:
Alpine 24.3%
Calaveras 22.8%
El Dorado 26%
Mariposa 21.6%
Mono 22.2%
Placer 16.4%
Tuolumne 20.7%
► Amador County’s population under the age of 18 is comparable to
that of the state and neighboring counties.
“ Amador County’s population is getting older. The largest
group, ages 41­50,
grew 46% between 1990 and 2000. Those
under age 10 actually decreased in the same period by 10.2%.
The median age in the county increased from 39 in 1990 to 43
in 2000 ( compared to an increase in the median age for the
state from 31.3 to 33.6)”
Amador County Voices for Families,
Amador County Community Assessment, 2000
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­10
Population By Gender
Amador County, 2000
Incorporated +
Unincorporated County
Gender Unincorporated County
Total % Total Total % Total
Male 19,328 55% 9,877 49.6%
Female 15,772 45% 10,042 50.4%
Total 35,100 100% 19,919 100%
U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000 Summary file –
Amador County, DP­1
Profile of General Demographic Characteristics
County/ City/ State Comparisons: Gender
As indicated in the preceding table, the balance between male and female countywide is
weighted towards the male population. This is due to the presence of Mule Creek Prison in
Ione with its large male population of inmates.
Within the unincorporated county, the gender balance more closely mimics that of the state
population of 50.2% female and 49.8% male.
► The unincorporated county has a gender balance nearly identical to
that of the state.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­11
3. Ethnicity of Population
Population By Ethnicity
Amador County 1990­2000
Unincorporated County
Race
Total 2000
Unincorporated
Population
% of Total 2000
Unincorporated
Population
White 18,625 93.5
Black or African American 40 0.2
American Indian and Alaska
Native
269 1.3
Asian 116 0.6
Native Hawaiian
Other Pacific Islander
0 0.0
Other Race 388 1.9
Two or more Races 488 2.4
Total/ a/, / b/ 19,926 99.9
/ a/ May not total 100% due to rounding
/ b/ Differs from county population total due to differences in sampling methods
U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000; Amador County, QT­PL.
Race, Hispanic or Latino and Age 2000;
Census 2000 Redistricting Data
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­12
Population By Ethnicity
Amador County 1990­2000
( Incorporated Plus Unincorporated County)
Race/ a/ Total of 1990
Population
% of 1990
Population
Total of 2000
Population
% of 2000
Population
% Change
1990­2000
White 26,894 89.5% 30,193 86.0% ­3.5%
Black or African
American
1,682 5.6% 1,185 3.4% ­2.2%
American Indian
and Alaska Native
493 1.6% 598 1.7% + 0.1%
Asian,
Native Hawaiian
Other Pacific
Islander
218 0.7% 340 1.0% + 0.3%
Other Race 752 2.5% 1,702 4.8% + 2.3%
Two or more
Races
1,052 3.0% ­­Total/
b/ 30,039 99.9 35,100 99.9
U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000; Amador County, QT­PL.
Race, Hispanic or Latino and Age 2000;
Census 2000 Redistricting Data
/ a/ Single race unless otherwise specified
/ b/ May not equal 100% due to rounding
Hispanic or Latino Population: Single or Multiple Races
Amador County 1990­2000
( Incorporated Plus Unincorporated County)
1990 Census 2000 Census
Total % Population Total % Population
% Change
1990­2000
2,520 8.4% 3,104 8.8% ­2.0%
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­13
County/ City Comparisons
Populations within the county’s incorporated cities increase the ethnic diversity of the county
as illustrated by the following statistics:
· Unincorporated county population = 93.5% white
· Incorporated county population = 76.2% white
· Incorporated + Unincorporated county population = 86.0% white
In comparison, 59.5% of California’s population is classified as white and 32.4% of the
population is reported as Hispanic or Latino.
6.4% ( 1,274 individuals) of residents in the unincorporated county are Hispanic or Latino. In
contrast, 8.8% of the countywide population is Hispanic or Latino.
The most ethnically diverse city within Amador County is Ione where the ethnicity of the
population is attributed to the presence of the Mule Creek Prison.
Race/ Ethnicity of Population
Comparison of City of Ione and Amador County
Race/ Ethnicity % Ione
Population
% Total County
Population
White Alone 58.4% 86.0%
Black/ African American 15.6% 3.4%
American Indian/ Alaska Native 3.3% 1.7%
Asian/ Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 2.8% 1.0%
Other Race 16.4% 4.8%
Two or More Races 3.5% 3.0%
Hispanic or Latino 19.6% 8.8%
The Hispanic or Latino population of Amador County is identified by the California
Department of Finance as the population sector expected to see the greatest increase in the
county during the planning period.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­14
► The population of the unincorporated county is 93.5% white and
6.6% Hispanic or Latino in contrast to the state’s population which
is 59.5% white and 32.4% Hispanic or Latino.
► By the year 2005, at least one in ten Amador County residents will be
Hispanic. California Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit
Analysis
In addition to the county’s identified need to provide increased opportunities in schools for
English as a Second Language programs ( Voices for Families, 2000) ; the changing ethnic
composition of the county has two housing­related
implications:
1. Per Census 2000, the average size of Hispanic or Latino households in California is
4.3 persons. Hispanic or Latino households in Amador County have an average
household size of 3.02 persons. This contrasts with the county­wide
average
household size of 2.39 persons. This indicates a future need for homes with 3+
bedrooms in those areas of the county where there are the highest concentrations of
Hispanic or Latino persons.
2. Similarly, as discussed in Section V( F), the unincorporated county has seen an
expansion in the production of wine and acres of wine grapes planted and harvested.
This expansion has increased the county’s demand for farm workers. According to A
Profile of U. S. Farm Workers: Demographics, Household Composition, Income and
Use of Services ( U. S. Department of Labor, Office of Program Economics Research
Report # 6 for the Commission on Immigrant Reform; September 16, 2003), farm
workers are predominantly Hispanic. 1 As indicated above, Hispanic households have
an average size of 4.3, indicates a future need for homes with 3+ bedrooms. [ See
Section V­F
for additional analysis of Farm Worker Housing Needs].
3. Based on the preceding statistics, the future demand for 3+ bedroom homes is likely
to occur in and around the cities of Ione and Plymouth ( and the Shenandoah Valley
surrounding Plymouth). Section VI ( F) of this report provides additional details.
1 Seven of 10 farm workers are foreign born. 94% of foreign born workers are Hispanic. Of the
remaining 3 of 10 farm workers born in the U. S. ; 1/ 3 are Hispanic.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­15
4. Jobs/ Housing Balance
Existing Conditions
Industry/ Economic Overview/ Labor force/ Unemployment
The civilian labor force in Amador County in 2000 totaled 14,230 individuals. 13,610 of
these individuals were employed in 2000 for an unemployment rate of 4.4%. The following
provides an overview of the industries in which the majority of Amador County residents are
employed:
Employment by Industry
Amador County, Census 2000
Industry Number of
Individuals
% Total
Individuals
Employed
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 531 3.9
Construction 1113 8.2
Manufacturing 1014 7.5
Wholesale trade 228 1.7
Retail trade 1717 12.6
Transportation & Warehousing, utilities 587 4.3
Information 279 2.0
Finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing 708 5.2
Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste
management services
1037 7.6
Educational, health and social services 2503 18.4
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food
services/ a/
1,720 12.6
Other services ( except public administration) 788 5.8
Public administration 1385 10.2
Total 13,610 100
/ a/ Includes amusement, gambling; performing arts, spectator sports, recreation and related industries
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­16
Largest Business & Agency Employers
The largest business and agency employers within Amador County are:
Largest Business/ Agency Employers
Amador County, 2000
( Amador Economic Development Corporation)
Employer Facility Type # Employees
Mule Creek State Prison ( Ione) Adult correctional facility 950
Jackson Rancheria Casino & Hotel Casino, hotel, conference center 700
Amador County Unified School District Education 579
Preston School of Industry Youth correctional facility 510
County of Amador County government 460
Sutter Amador Hospital Hospital 403
Wal­Mart
Retail store 245
MP Associates, Inc. Manufacturer 185
SunBridge Care Center Convalescent hospital 180
Ampine, SierraPine Ltd. Particle board manufacturer 130
Volcano Telephone Company Telephone, cable TV 124
K­Mart
Retail store 105
Safeway Stores, Inc. Grocery store 100
Fibreform Wood Products Molding manufacturer 80
Prospect Motors, Inc. Auto retailer 80
Raley’s Grocery store 75
Albertson’s Grocery store 72
One­Stop
markets Grocery store 70
Pine Grove Group Electronic components manufacturer 68
North American Refractories Clay, refractory products 62
ACM Machinery Machinery shop 57
During the preceding planning period, one of the county’s major employers, the Georgia
Pacific Mill in Martell, shut down with a loss of 6­800
jobs in the county. Amador County
is continuing to struggle with the economic ramifications from the loss of this major
employer.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­17
Projected Conditions
Based on projections from the California Employment Development Department Labor
Market Information Division ( CALMIS) ­Mother
Lode Consortium ( Calaveras, Amador,
Tuolumne and Mariposa counties) ; the following employment opportunities are anticipated
within the county.
Projected Employment Trends
The occupations projected to have the highest number of job openings through 2006 within
the Mother Lode Consortium ( Amador, Calaveras, Mariposa, and Tuolumne Counties) are:
1. Cashiers ( 810)
2. Salespersons, retail ( 560)
3. Correction officers, jailers ( 530)
4. Waiters and waitresses ( 530)
5. Combined food preparation service ( 330)
6. General office clerks ( 320)
7. General managers, top executives ( 280)
8. Teachers, elementary school ( 260)
9. Food preparation workers ( 250)
10. Teacher aides, paraprofessional ( 220)
11. Police officers ( 220)
12. Maids and housekeeping cleaners ( 220)
13. Registered nurses ( 210)
Declines are anticipated in job openings for typists, including word processors.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­18
Occupations projected to see the fastest growth rates over the planning period are:
Occupations with the Fastest % Growth
Mother Lode Consortium
2001­2008
Occupation
% Increase
through
2006
Education Required
( OJT=
On­the­Job­Training)
Team Assemblers 47.1 Moderate Term OJT
Medical Assistants 41.7 Moderate Term OJT
Personal & Home Care Aides 40.0 Short Term OJT
Social & Human Service Assistants 37.5 Moderate Term OJT
Drywall & Ceiling Tile Installer 37.5 Moderate Term OJT
Construction Laborers 36.4 Moderate Term OJT
Hotel, Motel & Resort Desk Clerks 32.0 Short Term OJT
Customer Service Representatives 31.3 Moderate Term OJT
Child Care Workers 31.3 Short Term OJT
First­Line
Supervisors; Managers of
Construction Trades 31.3 Work Experience
Electricians 31.3 Long Term OJT
Carpenters 30.9 Long Term OJT
Counter & Rental Clerks 30.8 Short Term OJT
Operating Engineers & Other
Construction Equipment Operators 30.8 Moderate Term OJT
Plumbers, Pipefitters & Steamfitters 30.8 Long Term OJT
Probation Officers & Correctional
Treatment Specialists 30.0 BA/ BS Degree
Painters, Construction & Maintenance 30.0 Moderate Term OJT
Gaming Dealers 28.6 Post­Sec.
Vocational Education
Police & Sheriff’s Patrol Officers 27.5 Long Term OJT
Computer Systems Analysts 27.3 BA/ BS Degree
Fitness Trainers & Aerobics Instructors 26.7 Post­Sec.
VocEd
Sales Reps, Wholesale & Mfg, Ex Tech &
Scientific Products 26.3 Moderate Term OJT
Maids & Housekeeping Cleaners 25.0 Short Term OJT
Teacher Assistants 25.0 Short Term OJT
Secondary School Teachers, Ex Special &
Vocational Education 25.0 BA/ BS Degree
Correctional Officers & Jailers 25.0 Moderate Term OJT
Truck Drivers, Heavy & Tractor­Trailer
25.0 Moderate Term OJT
Food Servers, Non­restaurant
25.0 Short Term OJT
Cement Masons & Concrete Finishers 25.0 Long Term OJT
Management Analysts 25.0 BA/ BS + Experience
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­19
Special Ed Teachers, Preschool,
Kindergarten & Elementary School 25.0 BA/ BS Degree
Pharmacists 25.0 Professional Degree
Interviewers, Except Eligibility & Loan 25.0 Short Term OJT
Machinists 25.0 Long Term OJT
Comb Food Prep & Serving Workers,
Including Fast Food 23.5 Short Term OJT
Amusement & Recreation Attendants 23.1 Short Term OJT
Dental Assistants 23.1 Moderate Term OJT
Nursing Aides, Orderlies & Attendants 22.9 Short Term OJT
Registered Nurses 22.8 Associate Degree
Landscaping & Grounds keeping Workers 22.2 Short Term OJT
First­Line
Sups/ Managers of Mechanics,
Installers 22.2 Work Experience
Recreation Workers 21.1 BA/ BS Degree
Retail Salespersons 20.0 Short Term OJT
Elementary School Teachers, Except
Special Ed 20.0 BA/ BS Degree
Truck Drivers, Light or Delivery Services 20.0 Short Term OJT
Bus Drivers, Transit & Intercity 20.0 Moderate Term OJT
Industrial Truck & Tractor Operators 20.0 Short Term OJT
Child, Family & School Social Workers 20.0 BA/ BS Degree
Automotive Service Technicians &
Mechanics 19.2 Post Sec. VocED
Firefighters 18.8 Long Term OJT
Source: December, 2003; www. calmis. cahwnet. gov/ FILE/ OCCPROJ/ MotheF& G. htm
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­20
Industry Wages Versus Wages Sufficient to Afford Fair Market Rent for a Three­Bedroom
Housing Unit
Comparison of Industry Sales, Payroll and Average Wage
Amador County, 2000
Industry #
establishments
Annual
sales receipts
Annual Payroll #
employees
Average employee
annual wage
Manufacturing 51 136,784,000 19,452,000 732 $ 26,574
Administrative & support & waste
management & remediation services
27 11,592,000 3,826,000 159 $ 24,063
Professional, scientific & technical services 50 9,290,000 2,707,000 119 $ 22,748
Other services ( except public administration) 32 8,115,000 1,631,000 98 $ 16,643
Retail trade 158 $ 475,025,000 25,682,000 1,570 $ 16,358
Real estate, rental and leasing 36 16,838,000 2,218,000 155 $ 14,310
Health care and social assistance 70 $ 26,566,000 8,949,000 631 $ 14,182
Accommodation & food services 106 $ 29,956,000 8,139,000 918 $ 8,866
Not available or Not disclosed:
Mining, utilities, construction, wholesale,
transportation & warehousing, information,
finance and insurance, management of
companies and enterprises, educational
services, arts/ entertainment & recreation
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­21
One of the greatest weaknesses in the economic and employment outlook in Amador County
is the increasing number of low­wage
jobs and the lack of a corresponding increase in
higher­wage
jobs.
Work Hours Per Week Necessary to Afford a
Three Bedroom Unit at Fair Market Rent ( 2000)
Amador County [ Voices for Families, 2002, p. 59]
Job Classification Weekly Work Hours to
Afford 3­Bedroom
Unit
( 1997 Mean Hourly Wages)
Waiters and waitresses 118.2
Child care workers 93.6
General office clerks 71.4
Carpenters 46.9
Secondary School Teachers 39.0
Registered nurses 34.7
Corrections Officers and Jailers 33.3
Wages Versus Ability to Afford Housing
“ To see how many hours per week a wage­earner
would have to work to
afford a three bedroom unit at the Fair Market Rate ( FMR), we looked at
seven different job classifications. To calculate the hours worked, we
used the mean hourly wages for each job using data for the most current
year ( 1997) available. The range went from 118.2 hours per week for
waiters and waitresses and to 33.3 hours for correction officers and jailers.
To afford the three­bedroom
unit at 40 hours per week, the National Low
Income Housing Coalition estimates that an individual would have to be
paid at least $ 16.85 per hour, without paid holidays or sick leave.”
Voices for Families, pps 58­59
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­22
Analysis
Economic Strengths: Economic/ Employment Strengths in Amador County include:
T An increase in the total number of businesses ( 7% increase) between1988 and1996
T The number of firms with 20 or more employees grew by 41% between 1988 and
1996
T Firms with less than 20 employees grew by 4% ( 1988­1996)
T Tourism spending reached $ 110 million in 1996 ( 12% of total payroll)
T Amador County’s unemployment rate has fallen below the statewide average
dropping from a high of 9.1% in 1993 to an all­time
low of 4.6% in 1999.
T During the 1990s, Amador County had a lower job­to­labor
force ratio than
California ( i. e., there was less of a disparity between available jobs and those in the
labor force in Amador County than in the state overall). It is generally true that, as
the ratio of jobs to workers approaches 1.0, there is a greater balance between jobs
and populations within the community. In Amador County, that ratio has steadily
increased from .64 to .78 in 1999.
Sierra Nevada Wealth Index 1999­2000,
pg. 94
Voices for Families, p. 53
Economic Weaknesses: Economic and Employment Concerns in Amador County
include:
T Growth in high wage service jobs, now 27% of all jobs, did not keep pace with the
Sierra Nevada level of 31%
T Low wage services jobs grew from 23 to 32% of all jobs between 1972 and 1996
Sierra Nevada Wealth Index 1999­2000,
pg. 94
Voices for Families pps. 53, 58
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­23
In summary, the following conclusions may be drawn from the preceding:
T The jobs/ housing gap is widening in Amador County
T Low­wage
service jobs are increasing
T Higher­wage
service jobs are not keeping pace with the region
T Without higher wage jobs, more families will be unable to afford housing in Amador
County
T Without some degree of training and/ or education, job seekers will be unable to gain
employment in higher­wage
jobs
T A wage of $ 16.85 per hour is necessary to afford a three­bedroom
housing unit at Fair
Market Rent in Amador County
T Without an increase in low­cost
housing, low­wage
service workers essential to the
county will be unable to afford housing in Amador County
Strategies for Achieving Jobs/ Housing Balance
The following strategies are recommended to assist the county in achieving an equitable
balance between job opportunities, wages and housing affordability and supply:
Continue to Support Establishment of a Business Park
Continue to coordinate with the Economic Development Corporation and to provide
assistance to landowners/ developers in the re­development
of the former mill site in Martell.
Consider formation of a Redevelopment Agency/ District in this area to support the creation
of jobs, affordable housing and infrastructure improvements necessary to attract higher­wage
jobs thereby increasing the number of residents who are able to afford housing in the county.
Advocate the Inclusion of Affordable Housing
Consider hiring a professional to meet/ negotiate with developers/ landowners associated with
the redevelopment of the former mill site in Martell ( and the surrounding area) to discuss
incentives to induce developers/ landowners to include affordable housing in redevelopment
plans ( e. g., establishing a redevelopment district to assist with infrastructure improvements
etc.).
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­24
Small Business Loans
Promote the availability of small business loans through the Economic Development
Corporation for the retention and expansion of existing county businesses. The county may
participate in this promotion by offering a link to the EDC on its website, providing staff
with a short training session on the types and availability of small business loans through the
EDC, and/ or by providing handouts at public counters.
Increase Access to Job Training/ Education
To assist residents in taking advantage of higher­wage
jobs as they become available, some
level of job training and/ or education is likely to be necessary. The county and its
incorporated cities should consider the establishment of a satellite education center ( perhaps
using redevelopment funds) to assist residents in gaining the training necessary to earn wages
sufficient to afford the Fair Market Rent for a three­bedroom
home in Amador County.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­25
B. Household Characteristics
1. Household Type and Presence of Children
Household/ Size­Population
Characteristics
1990­2000
1990 Census 2000 Census
Incorporated +
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
County
Incorporated +
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
County
Average
Household Size
( range in cities)
2.41 2.48
2.39
( 2.21­2.70)
2.36
Average
Family Size
( Range in Cities)
2.81
( 2.74­3.14)
2.81
Total #
Households
10,555
6,965
( 66% of Total)
12,759
8,430
( 66% of Total)
Total
Population
30,038
17,136
( 57% of Total)
35,100
19,919
( 57% of Total)
Source: U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000 Summary file Amador County, DP­1
Profile of General
Demographic Characteristics
2000 Household Characteristics ( General)
Household 1990 2000
Type Unincorporated +
Incorporated Unincorporated Unincorporated
+ Incorporated Unincorporated
Family 7,683 ( 73%) 5,225 ( 75.4%) 9,069 ( 71.1%) 6,280 ( 74.5%)
Non­family
2,835 ( 27%) 1,703 ( 24.6%) 3,690 ( 28.9%) 2,150 ( 25.5%)
Total 10,518 ( 100%) 6,928 ( 100%) 12,759 ( 100%) 8,430 ( 100%)
U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000 Summary file
Amador County, DP­1
Profile of General Demographic Characteristics
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­26
2000 Amador County Household Characteristics
( Detailed: Incorporated + Unincorporated County)
Household Type Household
Total
Percentage of Total
Family & Nonfamily
Family
Married couple with children
Married without children
7,451 58.5
Single Heads of Households w/
own or not own children
1,623 12.7
Subtotal Family Households 9,074 71.2
Non­Family
Householder alone
( 1,443 over age 65)
3,059 24.0
Other non­family
608 4.8
Subtotal Non­family
Households 3,667 28.8
Total Family & Non­Family
Households/ a/
12,741 100.0
/ a/ Does not equal 12,759 used elsewhere due to differences in sampling methods
U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000 Summary file
Amador County, DP­1
Profile of General Demographic Characteristics
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­27
Elderly and Children
Household Characteristics
Amador County, 2000
Incorporated +
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Household Type County
#
households
% Total
( 12,759)
#
households
% Total
( 8,430)
Households with
individuals 18 or
under
3,691 28.9 2,370 28.1
Households with
individuals over 65
4,312 33.8 2,802 33.2
Total 8,003 62.7 5,172 61.3
U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000 Summary file
Amador County, DP­1
Profile of General Demographic Characteristics
County/ City/ State Comparisons
Amador County has a smaller average household size ( 2.39 persons) than does the state ( 2.87
persons). Similarly, the county has a smaller average family size ( 2.81) than does the state
( 3.43). The average household size of the county’s incorporated cities ranges from 2.21 to
2.7 persons. The average family size in the county’s incorporated cities ranges from 2.74 to
3.14 persons. The largest average family size ( 3.14) is found in Ione, with the second­largest
family sizes found in Plymouth ( 2.99).
► Ione and Plymouth have the largest average family sizes in the county
As noted earlier in this Section, there is a higher concentration of Hispanic or Latino
households located near Ione ( the site of the Mule Creek Prison) than in other portions of the
county. Similarly, due to the growing wine grape industry near Plymouth, farm worker
populations are increasing near this incorporated area of the county. As documented in
Section VI, Hispanics compose the largest group of farm workers in California. As also
documented in Section VI, the average size of Hispanic or Latino households tend to fall
between 3 and 4 persons per household. Therefore, average family household sizes in and
around Ione and Plymouth are larger than the county average.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­28
6.4% of Amador County’s households are female single­parent
family households. In
comparison single female parent households are distributed throughout the county as follows:
% of Total Households Headed by a
Female Single Parent
( Amador County, 2000)
Jurisdiction % of Total
Households
Amador City 10.6%
Ione 10.4%
Jackson 7.4%
Plymouth 11.2%
Sutter Creek 9.2%
Unincorporated + Incorporated County 6.4%
► Plymouth, Amador City and Ione have significantly larger
populations of single female parent headed households than does the
remainder of the county.
The number of single­female
headed households found in Ione may be attributed to the
presence of the Mule Creek Prison ( wives living alone with children while a spouse is
incarcerated). In Plymouth, it is assumed that Census 2000 enumerators counted households
in the 49er Trailer Village ( a travel trailer park with 391 spaces including only 25 permanent
spaces)— evidence that single­female
parent households may be resorting to travel trailers to
house themselves and their children. Finally, the presence of a relatively high percentage of
single­female
parent households in Amador City may be related to the age of the housing
stock in that city. As noted in subsequent sections, the median year in which homes were
built in Amador City is 1939. The presence of a relatively high concentration of single­female
headed households there indicates that these old homes are providing either more
affordable rents than elsewhere in the county or, perhaps, may be purchased at a lower price
as “ fixer uppers.”
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­29
Analysis
Household/ Family Size
Average family and household sizes in Amador County have remained relatively steady
between 1990 and 2000.
Family/ Non­Family
Households
The distribution of family versus non­family
households in Amador County has remained
relatively steady between 1990 and 2000.
Living Alone
The number of households with individuals living alone remained relatively stable between
1990 ( 22.3% of total households) and 2000 ( 24.0% of total households).
Seniors Living Alone
The number of householders living alone over the age of 65 declined slightly between 1990
( 13.7% of total householders) and 2000 ( 11.3% of total householders). The county should
continue to monitor this statistic as a potential indicator of the ability of individuals 65 years
of age or older to afford housing.
Seniors Not Living Alone
The number of households with one or more individuals 65 years of age or older remained
almost unchanged between 1990 ( 34.1% of all households) and 2000 ( 33.8% of all
households).
Households with Individuals Under 18
The number of households with individuals under the age of 18 remained nearly unchanged
between 1990 ( 28.7% of total households) and 2000 ( 29% of all households).
Female­Headed
Households with Own Children
The number of female parent only households more than doubled between 1990 ( 3% of total
households) and 2000 ( 6.4% of total households).
► Female­headed
Households with Children
The number of female­headed
households with their own children
rose from 3% of total households in 1990 to 6.4% of total households
in the county in 2000.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­30
► Married Couples
The number of married couple households declined between 1990
( 64.5% of total households) and 2000 ( 58.5% of total households).
An analysis of the special needs of female parent headed households are discussed in Section
VI.
The decline in married couple households in the county may be partially explained by the
increased number of single­female
parent households in the county ( resulting from divorces).
Similarly, it is assumed that, in Ione, near the Mule Creek Prison, enumerators count married
females living alone with their children while a spouse is incarcerated as a single­female
parent headed household ( and not as a married couple household)— also a contributor to the
decline. Based on a decline in the number of those age 65 years and over living alone, it is
unlikely that seniors living alone due to the loss of a spouse is a contributor to the decline in
the percentage of married couples in the county.
2. Household Income and Housing Costs
2003 Annual Household Income by Category
Median: $ 56,000 for a Family of 4
Income Number of Persons in Family
Level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Very low 19,600 22,400 25,200 28,000 30,250 32,500 34,700 36,950
Lower 31,350 35,850 40,300 44,800 48,400 51,950 55,550 59,150
Median 39,200 44,800 50,400 56,000 60,500 64,950 69,450 73,900
Moderate 47,050 53,750 60,500 67,200 72,600 77,950 83,350 88,700
( CA Dpt. of Housing and Community Development, April 9,2003)
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­31
Projected Annual Wages for Income Groups for a Family of Four
Amador County, 2003
Very low 50% or less of the area median family income for
the county ( except that HUD has established a
higher limit in some areas based on high rent levels
relative to incomes in that area)
$ 0­$
28,559
Lower 51% ­80%
of the median family income for the
county $ 28,560­$
45,359
Moderate 81% ­120%
of the median family income for the
county $ 45,360­$
67,759
Above
moderate
121% and above of the median family income for
the county $ 67,760+
Housing Costs 1990­2000
Housing Type
1990
Median Monthly Cost or
Cost Range in Dollars
2000
Median Monthly Cost or
Cost Range in Dollars
Single­family
Owner­occupied
( monthly mortgage payment)
$ 773 $ 1,140
Studio rental Less than $ 200 $ 500­$
749
1 BR Rental $ 300­$
499 $ 300­$
499
2 BR Rental $ 500­$
749 $ 500­749
3 BR+ Rental $ 500­$
749 $ 750­$
999
County California – Data extracted from Census 2000
Housing, 2000 [ California]: Summary File 3 ( June 22, 2003)
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­32
Residential Real Estate Sales
Amador County Association of Realtors
Amador County, 2002
Type of Real Estate Total #
Sales
Average Sale Price
Single Family Residential
Two bedroom or less 225 $ 164,878
Three bedroom 315 $ 240,417
Four bedroom 48 $ 339,365
Five + bedrooms 7 $ 439,428
Condo/ Townhouse 3 $ 107,667
Mobile home 65 $ 73,261
Multi­family
14 $ 208,115
The average cost of land in 2002 was $ 73,500 per acre.
County/ City Comparisons
The range of monthly rental costs in the incorporated county closely mimics those in the
unincorporated county.
The median value of owner­occupied
units in the incorporated county is highest in Amador
City ($ 167,900) and lowest in Plymouth ($ 106,300).
Analysis
► The median value of owner­occupied
housing units increased 28%
from $ 120,000 in 1990 to $ 153,700 in 2000 countywide.
► The median contract rent in Amador County increased by 38.2%
from $ 411 per month in 1990 to $ 568 per month in 2000.
Based on the income limits established by the California Housing and Community
Development, the following summarizes the estimated “ affordable housing” costs for all
income levels in Amador County:
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­33
Cost of Affordable Housing for 3­Person
Households
($ 50,400 Median Income)
Amador County, 2000
Income Category ( income range)
Annual Cost
( Monthly Cost)
of Affordable Housing
Estimated Total
Cost of Affordable
Home
( owner occupied)/ a/
Very low ($ 25,703 or less) $ 7,560 annual ($ 630/ month) $ 63,000 or less
Low ($ 25,704­$
40,823) $ 7,561­$
12,090 annual
($ 631­$
1,008/ month)
$ 63,001­$
100,800
Moderate ($ 40,824­$
60,983) $ 12,091­$
15,120
($ 1009­$
1,260/ month)
$ 100,801
$ 126,000
Above Moderate ($ 60,984+) $ 15,121­$
18,150
($ 1,261 ­$
1,513/ month)
$ 126,001­$
151,300
/ a/ Based on the “ rule of thumb” that a monthly mortgage payment will approximately
equal the sales price of the home divided by 100.
The average sales price for a two­bedroom
home ( accommodating a three­person
household)
is $ 164,080. The $ 50,400 median income for a family of three will purchase a home of
approximately $ 126,000.
► A family of three earning the median county income will encounter
an average shortfall of approximately $ 38,100 when purchasing a
two­bedroom
home in Amador County.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­34
3. Overpayment
Households paying more than 30% gross annual income are considered to be overpaying for
rent or mortgage payments.
Overpayment
Amador County 1990­2000
1990 Census
Total Households
Occupied: 10,518
Owner Occupied: 7,842
Renter Occupied: 2,676
2000 Census
Total Households
Occupied: 12,759
Owner Occupied: 9,629
Renter Occupied: 2,945
Occupied
Housing
Type
# Overpaying % Overpaying # Overpaying % Overpaying
Owner ­Overall
1,217 15.5%/ a/ 1,856 19.3%/ a/
Renter – Overall 904 33.8%/ b/ 1,163 39.5%/ b/
Total Households
Overpaying
2,121 20.2%/ c/ 3,019 23.7%/ c/
Renter –
Very Low Income
( Family of 4)
943/ c/ 81.1%/ e/
Renter
Low Income
( Family of 4)
194/ c/ 16.7%/ e/
Owner –
Very Low Income
( Family of 4)
903/ c/ 48.7%/ f/
Owner –
Lower Income
( Family of 4)
510/ c/ 5.3%/ f/
/ a/ Percentage of total owner occupied households
/ b/ Percentage of total renter occupied households
/ c/ Extrapolated from Household Income in 1999 by Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income in
1999, Census 2000. Income levels reported in the Census do not precisely match income level cut­offs
for low and very low income households in Amador County, therefore, numbers are extrapolated
/ d/ Estimated. Census 2000 categories for household income do not precisely correspond to ranges for
low and very low income households in Amador County.
/ e/ Percentage of all overpaying renter households
/ f/ Percentage of all overpaying owner households ( with a mortgage)
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­35
Renters Overpaying ( Family of 4)
By Income Category, by Area
TTL Renters TTL Renters
Overpaying
Very Low
Overpaying
( 0­$
28,559)
Lower
Overpaying
($ 28,560­$
43,359)
Moderate
Overpaying
($ 45,360­$
67,759)
Above Mod.
Overpaying
($ 67,760+)
County 2,945
( 218
uncounted)
1,163 943 194 24 2
Unincorporated County 1,152 460
( 39.9% TTL Renters)
378
( 82.2% of overpays)
71
( 15.4%
overpays)
9
( 2.0%
overpays)
2
( 0.4%
overpays)
Amador 29 10 8 2 0 0
Ione 423 146 138 8 0 0
Jackson 811 348 262 74 12 0
Plymouth 134 62 44 16 2 0
Sutter Creek 396 137 113 23 1 0
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­36
Renters Overpaying ( Family of 3)
By Income Category, by Area
TTL Renters TTL Renters
Overpaying
Very Low
Overpaying
( 0­$
25,703)
Lower
Overpaying
($ 25,704­$
40,823)
Moderate
Overpaying
($ 40,824­$
60,983)
Above Mod.
Overpaying
($ 60,984 +)
County 2,945
( 218 uncounted)
1,163 875 245 39 4
Unincorporated County 1,152 460
( 39.9% ttl renters)
349
( 75.9% overpays)
98
( 21.3% overpays)
9
( 2.0%
overpays)
4
( 0.8% overpays)
Amador 29 10 7 3 0 0
Ione 423 146 134 12 0 0
Jackson 811 348 242 82 24 0
Plymouth 134 62 39 19 4 0
Sutter Creek 396 137 104 31 2 0
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­37
Owners Overpaying w/ Mortgage ( Family of 4)
By Income Category, by Area
TTL Owners
w/ Mortgage
TTL Owners
Overpaying
w/ mortgage
Very Low
Overpaying
( 0­$
28,559)
Lower
Overpaying
($ 28,560­$
43,359)
Moderate
Overpaying
($ 45,360­$
67,759)
Above Mod.
Overpaying
($ 67,760+)
County 4,778 1,856 903 510 310 133
Unincorporated County 3,404 1,349
( 39.6% total owners
w/ mortgage)
616
45.7% of overpays
385
28.5% of
overpays
249
18.5% of
overpays
99
7.3% of
overpays
Amador 28 13 5 3 4 1
Ione 454 162 84 49 20 9
Jackson 453 169 105 43 18 3
Plymouth 102 41 29 10 2 0
Sutter Creek 337 122 64 20 17 21
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­38
Owners Overpaying w/ Mortgage ( Family of 3)
By Income Category, by Area
TTL Owners
w/ mortgage
TTL Owners
Overpaying
w/ mortgage
Very Low
Overpaying
( 0­$
28,559)
Lower
Overpaying
($ 28,560­$
43,359)
Moderate
Overpaying
($ 45,360­$
67,759)
Above Mod.
Overpaying
($ 67,760+)
County 4,778 1,856 1,059 233 361 203
Unincorporated County 3,404 1,349
( 39.6% total owners
w/ mortgage)
723
53.6% of overpays
180
13.3% of
overpays
292
21.6% of
overpays
154
11.4% of
overpays
Amador 28 13 5 2 4 2
Ione 454 162 106 19 23 14
Jackson 453 169 116 20 27 6
Plymouth 102 41 34 4 3 0
Sutter Creek 337 122 75 8 12 27
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­39
County/ City Comparisons
Owners
Of the total 1,856 owners overpaying in the incorporated and unincorporated county, 1,413
( 76.1%) are in low or very low income households ( based on a family of 4). 1,349 ( 72.6%) of
overpaying owners are located in the unincorporated county. 1,001 of the 1,349 overpaying
owner households in the unincorporated county ( 74.2%) are in very low and lower income
households.
Renters
Of the total 1,163 renters overpaying, 460 ( 40%) are in the unincorporated county ( with 60%
in cities). By an overwhelming margin ( 97.2%), most overpaying renter households in the
unincorporated county are in low or very low income households.
Analysis
► 74.2% of overpaying homeowners and 97.2% of overpaying renters
located in the unincorporated county are in very low or lower income
households.
► The majority of overpaying homeowners ( 72.6%) are living in the
unincorporated county while the majority of overpaying renters
( 60%) live within the county’s incorporated cities ( i. e., 40% live in
the unincorporated county).
These statistics indicate that programs targeting homeowners are likely to be more in demand
in the unincorporated portions of the county while programs targeting renters are expected to
be most in demand within the county’s incorporated cities.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­40
4. Household Income Characteristics
Household Income Characteristics
Amador County, 1990­2003
Income Group
No. of
Households
Amador
County, 1990
% Total
Amador
County, 1990
No. of
Households
Amador
County 2000
% Total
Amador County,
2000
Very low 1,541 24% 2,807 22%
Other low 979 15% 2,041 16%
Moderate 1,381 22% 2,552 20%
Above
Moderate
2,531 39% 5,359 42%
Total 10,518 100.00% 12,759 100.00%
Sources: U. S. Census Bureau; Census 2000 Summary file; Amador County, DP­1
Profile of General
Demographic Characteristics; Central Sierra Planning Council – Regional Housing Needs Allocation August 6,
2003; 1992 Amador County Housing Element
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­41
County/ City Comparison
Percentage of Households in Each Income Group
for Each Jurisdiction in Amador County
Jurisdiction Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Amador City 14% 14% 37% 35%
Ione 26% 18% 15% 41%
Jackson 31% 17% 18% 34%
Plymouth 26% 17% 25% 32%
Sutter Creek 21% 15% 19% 45%
Unincorporated
County
21% 16% 18% 45%
Analysis
The distribution of very low, low, moderate and above moderate income households has
remained nearly the same between 1990 and 2000.
► The largest concentration of very low income households can be
found in and around Jackson ( 31%), Ione ( 26%) and Plymouth
( 26%). Programs targeting very low income households should be
concentrated in and around these three areas.
The highest concentration of low income households is relatively evenly distributed
throughout the county.
The highest concentration of moderate income households is in Amador City ( 37%) with
Plymouth being a distant second ( 25%) and Ione having the fewest moderate income
households in the county.
The highest concentrations of above moderate income households are in Sutter Creek and the
Unincorporated County.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­42
5. Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms.
Overcrowding
Amador County, 2000
Housing Type
Number of Overcrowded
Households
Incorporated +
Unincorporated
Number of Overcrowded
Unincorporated Only
Owner occupied 251 178
Renter occupied 198 79
Total 449 257
Census 2000: Tenure by Occupants Per Room
County/ City Comparison
The highest percentage of overcrowded homes is found in Ione ( 5.4% of households),
consistent with previous statistics indicating an average family size above that of the county
average. This can be partially attributed to the concentration of a portion of the county’s
Hispanic population in Ione and the accompanying family sizes above the county average.
Surprisingly, the lowest concentration of overcrowded households is in Plymouth ( 1.3% of
total households) where the average family size also is above the county average. Based on
this statistic, it is anticipated that an update of the county’s housing conditions survey will
find that Plymouth has a higher concentration of 3+ bedroom homes than in some other
portions of the county.
Analysis
In 1990, Amador County identified 376 households with overcrowding in the incorporated
and unincorporated county.
► The 449 overcrowded households reported in the 2000 Census
represents an increase of nearly 20% in overcrowded households
over the past 10 years.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­43
This indicates the need to provide affordable housing with total bedrooms per unit which
reflect the average family size found in the community. For example, more bedrooms per
unit should be encouraged in affordable housing in Ione than in Plymouth.
6. Group Quarters
Group Quarters
Amador County 1990­2000
U. S. Census Bureau – 1990 & 2000
Group Quarters 1990
# individuals
2000
# individuals
Institutional Population 4,637 4,477
Non­institutional
69 104
Total 4,706 4,581
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­44
County/ City Comparison
Distribution of Institutional Group Quarters
Amador County, Census 2000
Group
Quarters
Amador Ione Jackson Plymouth Sutter
Creek
Unincorporated
County
Total
Institutional Group Quarters
Local Jails,
Police Lockups
25 25
State Prisons 3,457 3,457
Other
Correctional
80 80
Nursing Homes 138 1 139
Hospital­for
physically
handicapped
10 10
Hospital –
wards for
patients
w/ o home
elsewhere
1 1
Juvenile
institution
765 765
Subtotal Institutional Group Quarters 4,477
Non­institutional
Group Quarters
Group Home for
mentally ill
34 34
Group Home for
mentally
retarded
5 5
Group Home for
physically
handicapped
4 4
Other 60 1 61
Subtotal Non­institutionalized
population in Group Quarters 104
TOTAL 0 4,231 268 0 1 81 4,581
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­45
Total Population in Institutional Group Quarters
by Age, Sex, Institution Type
Amador County – Census 2000
Population
Description
Correctional
Institutions
Nursing
Homes Other Total
Under 18 Years of Age
Male 3 0 375 378
Female 0 0 2 2
Subtotal Under 18 3 0 377 380
Age 18­64
Male 3,528 4 388 3,920
Female 5 4 0 9
Subtotal 18­64
3,533 8 388 3,929
Age 65 Years and Over
Male 26 33 3 62
Female 0 98 8 106
Subtotal 65+ 26 131 11 168
Total 3,562 139 776 4,477
Analysis
As clearly indicated, the largest concentration of individuals in group quarters is found in
Ione, the site of the Mule Creek Prison.
► Given the high percentage of the county population age 65 and over
( 18%), there are surprisingly few individuals in nursing homes ( only
2.2%) throughout the county.
This statistic may indicate that: a) seniors in need of assisted living facilities are leaving the
county; b) there is a need for additional assisted living facilities for seniors within the county;
c) in­home
support services provided by the county and/ or other seniors in the community
are performing admirably, or d) seniors in Amador County receive above average health care
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­46
reducing the need for nursing home facilities. This indicator should be further studied in
conjunction with considering new proposal for senior assisted living facilities.
C. Housing Characteristics
1. Housing Stock
Housing Stock by Housing Type
Single Family, Multi­Family,
Mobile homes
Amador County
1999 – CA Dpt. of Finance
Description Incorporated County Unincorporated County
# Units % Total
Incorporated
# units % Total
Unincorporated
Single Family 3,079 69% 9,096 87%
Attached 182 4.1% 105 1.0%
Detached 2,897 64.9% 8,991 86.0%
Multi­Family
901 20.2% 231 2.2%
2­4
Units 320 7.2% 132 1.3%
5+ Units 581 13.0% 99 0.9%
Mobile homes 484 10.8% 1,114 10.7%
Mobile homes 484 10.8% 1,114 10.7%
Total Housing
Units/ a/
4,464 100.0 10,441 99.9
/ a/ May not equal 100% due to rounding
County/ City Comparisons
As illustrated in the preceding table, the majority of multi­family
housing units are
concentrated near services within the incorporated cities ( 20.2% in cities versus 2.2% in the
unincorporated county).
Analysis
The distribution of housing types in the unincorporated county has remained virtually
unchanged between 1990 ( 86% single­family
residential; 2% multi­family;
and 11% mobile
homes) and 2000 ( 87% single­family
residential; 2.2% multi­family
and 10.7% mobile
homes).
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­47
However, given the increasing population with larger families, the need to increase the total
number of bedrooms in housing in some areas of the county should be given consideration in
evaluating affordable housing proposals.
2. Housing Conditions
Amador County completed a drive­by
survey of all county housing units ( 9,234 units) in
October, 1993. A detailed housing condition survey of the 455 units identified in the drive­by
survey as having some degree of deterioration was conducted by the housing staff of the
Central Sierra Planning Council with the following results:
Housing Conditions
Amador County ( Unincorporated)
October, 1993
Degree of
Deterioration
Number of
Housing Units
% of Total
Surveyed
% Total
Housing
Units in
County
Minor 81 18% 0.9%
Moderate 236 52% 2.6%
Substantial 122 27% 1.3%
Dilapidated 16 4% 0.2%
Total/ a/ 455 101% 5%
/ a/ May not equal 100% due to rounding
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­48
Age of Housing Stock
Amador County, 2000
Median Year Structure Built: 1977
Year Structure Built Total
Housing
Units
Percentage of
Total
1990­2000
2,812 18.7
1980­1989
3,693 24.6
1970­1979
3,725 24.8
1960­1969
1,457 9.7
1950­1959
1,152 7.7
1940­1949
784 5.2
1939 or earlier 1,412 9.4
Total/ a/ 15,035 100.1
Source: U. S. Census 2000, Summary File 3
/ a/ May not equal 100% due to rounding
County/ City Comparison
The median year of construction for structures in the incorporated and unincorporated
county ranges from 1968 to 1979 with a single notable exception— In Amador City,
the median year of construction is 1939.
Analysis
Given the relatively recent construction dates of housing structures within the
unincorporated county and the small ( 5%) number of housing units identified as
requiring substantial rehabilitation, this housing element includes provisions for
housing rehabilitation, but places a stronger emphasis on the creation of new units
over rehabilitation of existing housing units.
Please refer to Section VI for a discussion of the needs of seniors with respect to
home maintenance and rehabilitations.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­49
3. Occupancy and Vacancy Rates
Household Occupancy Status
Amador County 1990­2000
U. S. Census Bureau 1990, 2000
( incorporated + unincorporated county)
Occupancy Status 1990 Census
1990
Vacancy
Rate
2000
Census
2000
Vacancy
Rate
Occupied Units 10,518 12,759
Vacant Units/ a/ 2,296 2,276
Tota
l
12,814 17.9% 15,035 15.1%
/ a/ Includes for rent, for sale, rented or sold but not occupied, seasonal or occasional use, migrant worker
housing
County/ City/ State Comparisons
The overall vacancy rate in the county’s incorporated cities is 5% lower than the vacancy rate
in the unincorporated county ( 15.1% in the unincorporated county versus 7% overall in the
cities). This is attributed, in large part, to the high number of second homes and recreational
houses in the high elevations of the unincorporated county adjacent to the counties lakes and
winter sports areas.
Contrary to statistics elsewhere in the county, the City of Plymouth has an unusually high
14.2% vacancy rate in comparison to the 6.1­7.3%
vacancy rates found in the county’s four
other cities. As previously discussed, this high vacancy rate does not accurately characterize
the city, where unoccupied homes are relatively rare. It is likely that this statistics reflects
the presence of a recreational vehicle park in Plymouth has 25 permanent spaces, but also
more than 300 spaces for transient recreational use. The county should confirm that Census
2000 enumerators counted vacant RV pads as unoccupied housing units, thereby skewing the
vacancy rate in the City of Plymouth.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­50
Analysis
The percentage of vacant housing units in the county declined slightly between 1990 ( 17.9%)
and 2000 ( 15.1%). The county should continue to monitor this statistic to determine whether
seasonal homes previously used as second dwellings are increasingly becoming permanent
residences or if these units are being made available for sale or rent to county residents.
4. Owner/ Renter Occupation
More County residents own rather than rent their homes.
Owner/ Renter Housing Units
Amador County 1990­2000
Housing Units 1990 Census 2000 Census
Occupied
Owner
7,842
( 74.6% of total
occupied units)
9,629
( 75.5% of total
occupied units)
Renter
2,676
( 25.4% of total
occupied units)
3,130
( 24.5% of total
occupied units)
Subtotal Occupied 10,518 12,759
Vacant/ a/
2,296
( 17.9% of total
housing units)
2,276
( 15.1% of total
housing units)
Total Housing Units 12,814 15,035
/ a/ Includes for rent, for sale, rented or sold but not occupied, seasonal or occasional use,
migrant worker housing
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­51
Households by Tenure
Amador County, 2000
Total for Area Owner
Occupied
% Total Renter
Occupied
% Total
Total County/ a/ 12,759 9,620 75.4% 3,139 24.6%
Unincorporated County 8,430 7,063 83.8% 1,367 16.2%
Amador 85 56 65.9% 29 34.1%
Ione 1,081 662 61.2% 419 38.8%
Jackson 1,746 983 56.3% 763 43.7%
Plymouth 392 253 64.5% 139 35.5%
Sutter Creek 1,025 603 58.8% 422 41.2%
/ a/ Differs slightly from preceding table due to adjustments made in Census after initial counts
County/ City/ State Comparisons
75.5% of county residents own their homes in comparison to only 56.9% of residents
statewide. In the unincorporated county, the margin widens with 83.3% of households
owning their homes. Incorporated cities in Amador County more closely mimic state
statistics with 59.7% of total occupied housing units being owner occupied and 40.3% are
renter occupied. The ratio of owner occupied to renter occupied housing units is relatively
uniform within the county’s incorporated cities where owner occupied homes compose
between 60.5% and 65.9% of total housing units.
The availability of rental units in the unincorporated county is significantly lower than in
incorporated cities.
Analysis
The ratio of owner occupied units to renter occupied housing units countywide has remained
at nearly 3: 1 ( Owner­to­Renter
occupied units) between 1990 and 2000.
Given the disparity between the county’s median income and the average sales price of
homes, it is clear that an increase in rental housing in and around the county’s incorporated
cities is essential if the county is to meet its affordable housing goals.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
V­52
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­1
VI. Special Needs Households
A. Households with Individuals 65 Years and Over
Households with Individuals 65 Years and Over
Amador County, 2000
Total County
Households
Total Households w/
65+ age resident
Total % Households
w/ 65+ age resident
12,759 4,312 33.8
Householders 65 and Older by Tenure
Amador County, 2000
Area Owner Householder
65+
Renter Householder
65+
Total Householder
65+
County ( total) 3,421 549 3,970
Unincorporated 2,393 159 2,552
Amador 17 2 19
Ione 182 67 249
Jackson 482 182 664
Plymouth 89 26 115
Sutter Creek 258 113 371
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­2
Senior Support Organizations
Several organizations have been established to assess and endeavor to meet the needs of this
significant sector of Amador County’s population including:
Area 12 Agency on Agency
This agency collects data from seniors at various senior functions, at senior nutrition sites,
HICAP surveys, senior expos, through mail surveys, senior expos, area plan dinners,
advisory council meetings, governing board meetings and demographic reports and similar
activities. Data collection is used to identify the special needs of seniors in Alpine, Amador,
Calaveras, Mariposa and Tuolumne counties. A12AA also assists the county with its senior
meals programs and other programs in support of seniors.
Amador County Commission on Aging
The Amador County Commission on Aging is a county organization established by the
Amador County Board of Supervisors and charged with advocating senior issues on behalf of
the county’s seniors.
Adult Protective Services ( APS)
The Amador County Adult Protective Services provides assistance to elderly and dependent
adults who are functionally impaired, unable to meet their own needs, and who are victims of
abuse, neglect, or exploitation. APS staff provides or coordinates support services including
counseling, referrals for conservatorships, and advocacy. They also provide information and
education to other agencies and the public regarding reporting requirements pursuant to elder
and dependent adult abuse reporting laws.
Amador County Department of Social Services: General Assistance Program
This is a county­funded
assistance program for indigent adults who do not receive aid from
other state or federal assistance programs.
Amador County Department of Social Services: In­Home
Support Services ( IHSS)
The programs helps pay for services to assist seniors and/ or the disabled to remain living in
their homes. IHSS is considered an alternative to out­of­home
care, such as nursing homes
and board and care facilities. IHSS can provide housecleaning, meal preparation, laundry,
grocery shopping, personal care services ( bathing, grooming, paramedical services),
accompaniment to medical appointments and protective supervision for the mentally
impaired. These services are available to any individual, regardless of income.
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­3
A Step Ahead – Partnering in Elder Services
This organization provides senior care advocacy services.
Senior Meals Programs
See Amador Senior Center for a description of this program.
Senior facilities
Senior facilities in Amador County include:
Amador Senior Center ( ASC)
The Amador Senior Center is located in Jackson at 229 New York Ranch Road and is
managed by the non­profit
Amador Senior Services, Inc. The center opened in 1985 and was
built primarily with funds raised by the senior community.
The center provides kitchen facilities for the county’s senior meals programs. Meals for
seniors are prepared and served at the center, delivered to homes, and are served weekly in
the cities of Ione and Plymouth. The center also provides senior meal service to portions of
Calaveras County.
The center provides legal services one day each week and has a listing service for seniors in
need of special services ( e. g., home maintenance).
ASC has an extensive social program including card groups, bingo, dancing, a humanities
class, ceramics, a photo lab, quilting class, and bus trips to Reno and Tahoe. ASC is also the
meeting site of various health support groups ( Alzheimer’s, Better Breathers, Hospice).
Seniors actively participate in fund­raising
events to help support the center ( e. g., dinners,
candy sales, an on­site
boutique). The center also receives a $ 10,000 allocation from the
county. The non­profit
Amador Senior Foundation was established to accept donations and
bequests on behalf of the senior center.
Senior Care Facilities
Senior care facilities in Amador County include:
Amador Residential Care Home ( Jackson)
Gold Quartz Inn Senior Retirement Home ( Sutter Creek)
Oak Manor ( Jackson) – this facility is located adjacent to the Amador Senior Center
SunBridge Care Center ( Jackson)
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­4
County/ City/ State Comparisons
2,802 ( 33%) households within the unincorporated county include individuals aged 65 years
or older. In comparison, 1,510 ( 34.9%) of the incorporated cities have households with
residents aged 65 years or older.
18% of Amador County’s population is 65 years of age or older. Comparatively, 10.6% of
California’s population and 12.4% of the U. S. population is 65 years of age or older.
► Amador County has one of the highest percentages of persons aged
65 years of age or older in the region ( 18%)
► The unincorporated county has 2,552 households headed by persons
aged 65 years of age or older. 93.8% of these households are owner­occupied
with the remaining 6.2% of these renter­occupied.
In
comparison 83.3% of the unincorporated county lives in owner­occupied
households with 16.2% living in renter­occupied
households.
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­5
Analysis
These organizations and their assessments of senior needs have provided invaluable
assistance in identifying senior needs with respect to housing, housing costs, care, home
maintenance and transportation needs.
The Area 12 Agency on Aging 2002 Needs Assessment further details the needs of seniors
in Amador County relative to housing costs, transportation and independent living ( see
following table):
Community Assessment of Senior Needs
Greatest strengths:
· The Jackson Senior Center and its programs
· The many organizations and support groups for seniors
Greatest challenges:
· Increasing cost of living and limited housing
· Seniors don’t have access to enough affordable in­home
and visitation care
· Current public transportation doesn’t provide evening routes
Key areas for community improvement:
· Development of transportation options that better meet the needs of youth
& seniors
· Increased study of in­home
& visitation care issues for seniors
Source: Amador County Voices for Families 2000 Community Assessment
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­6
Household Monthly Income for Seniors
Source: A12AA; 2002 Needs Assessment – Amador County
Unmarried Seniors
Monthly Income $ 0­$
610 $ 611­$
685 $ 686­$
770 $ 771­$
1,225 $ 1,226+ Total
Projected Gross Annual Income $ 0­$
7,320 $ 7,321­$
8,220 $ 8,221­$
9,240 $ 9,241­$
14,700 $ 14,700 and
above
# individuals surveyed
earning identified income
4 7 12 42 50 115
Maximum Housing Costs per
Year for Designated Income
$ 0­$
2,440 $ 2,441 to $ 2,740 $ 2,741­$
3,080 $ 3081­$
4,900 $ 4,901+
Maximum Housing Costs per
Month for Designated Income
$ 0­$
203.33 $ 203.34­$
228.33 $ 228.34­$
256.67 $ 256.68­$
408.33 $ 408.34 +
Married Seniors
Monthly Income $ 0­$
770 $ 771­$
970 $ 971­$
1,250 $ 1,251­$
1,500 $ 1,501 + Total
Projected Gross Annual Income $ 0 ­$
9,240 $ 9,241­$
11,640 $ 11,641­$
15,000 $ 15,001­$
18,000 $ 18,001 and
above
# individuals surveyed
earning identified income
2 3 11 15 66 97
Maximum Housing Costs per
Year for Designated Income
$ 0­$
3,080 $ 3081­$
3,880 $ 3881­$
5,000 $ 5001­$
6,000 $ 6001+
Maximum Housing Costs per
Month for Designated Income
$ 0­$
256.67 $ 256.68­$
323.33 $ 323.34­$
416.67 $ 416.68­$
500 $ 501+
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­7
Transportation:
Senior Transportation Use/ Needs Assessment
Amador County; A12AA 2002 Needs Assessment
Average age of respondent: 77.24
Answer # Individuals
Responding
Question A: What method of transportation do you use?
Drive yourself 180
Get rides from others 58
Walk 19
Public mass transit 16
Taxi ( self pay) 4
Other 0
Total 277
Question B: Are your transportation needs being met?
Yes 193
No 56
Total 249
Question C: If you don’t use public transportation, what
would encourage you to start using public transportation?
Assistance to appointments 48
Reasonable cost 37
Expanded hours 30
Not interested 8
Total 123
As indicated in the preceding table and consistent with the findings of Amador County
Voices for Families ( 2000), seniors and teens do not feel that public transportation is meeting
their transportation needs ( See Section VIII, Transportation, for additional details).
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­8
Independent Living for Seniors
Independent Living Needs Assessment
Amador County; A12AA 2002 Needs Assessment
Answer # Individuals Responding
Question A: To be able to continue living at home, what services would you
anticipate being most important to you?
Chore services ( housekeeping, yard) 144
Affordable Home Repair 97
Transportation 77
Shopping and Errands 69
Preparing Meals and Cleaning Up 62
Personal care ( Bathing, grooming, etc.) 29
Total 478
Question B: Because of a health condition, do you have difficulty going outside
the home alone, for example to shop or visit the doctor’s office?
Yes 49
No 200
Total 249
Question C: What problems do you face in receiving services to continue living
in your home?
None 118
Cost 66
Lack of information 41
Language barriers 0
Total 225
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­9
Independent Living Needs Assessment
Amador County; A12AA 2002 Needs Assessment
Answer # Individuals Responding
Question D:
In the near future do you anticipate moving to a senior housing complex, nursing
home facility or neither?
Neither 186
Senior Housing Complex 18
Nursing home facility 6
Total 210
Question E: Currently, what areas affect you the most. Please mark three boxes
that apply to you.
Enough money to live on 77
Affordable prescriptions 76
Affordable health care 69
Help in my home 58
Not being able to drive 46
Loneliness 38
Not having transportation 37
Affordable legal help 22
Being a victim of fraud 20
Being homebound 15
Not feeling safe at home 9
Getting sufficient food 7
Total 474
As indicated in the preceding tables, high­priority
senior needs in Amador County which
may be linked to housing issues, include:
· Transportation
· Housekeeping/ Yard Maintenance
· Affordable Home Repair
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­10
Housing Element Strategies to Address Senior Needs
In discussion with the county’s senior support organizations, the following strategies were
identified as appropriate for the county’s housing element in support of county seniors:
U Provide Opportunities for Establishing Tri­level
Living Communities
Encourage the establishment of and remove land use and zoning constraints for the
establishment of tri­level
living communities for seniors. Communities should
provide assisted living, unassisted living and nursing home opportunities within the
same community to allow married seniors to remain with their spouses and to allow
seniors to remain local and avoid major changes in living conditions and locations
throughout their lives. Development incentives should be included where such
communities provide senior housing for low and very­low
income seniors.
U Provide Opportunities for Cooperative Housing
Encourage the establishment of and remove land use and zoning constraints for the
establishment of cooperative housing communities for seniors and mixed age groups
( See Appendix B). These communities should provide opportunities for senior
independent living with assistance from the cooperative housing community.
Development incentives should be included where such communities provide senior
housing for low and very­low
income seniors.
U Seek Funding for Home Maintenance­Repair
Assistance/ Update Housing
Conditions Survey/ Consider Redevelopment
As indicated in the A12AA’s needs assessment, a significant percentage of the
county’s seniors worry that they will be unable to afford household repairs and
maintenance costs. Seniors also indicate the need for assistance in undertaking
maintenance and repair tasks on their homes. The county and the county’s senior
support agencies should pursue funding ( See Appendix A and Goals, Policies and
Implementation Programs, Section X) to assist in home repairs and maintenance for
low and very low income seniors. An update of the county’s housing conditions
assessment should include an evaluation of substandard or moderately deteriorated
homes occupied by seniors who could benefit from home maintenance and repair
assistance. Finally, as noted in other sections of this report, the county has identified
pockets of poverty. For those identified pockets, the county should investigate the
benefits of establishing redevelopment districts to assist in improving housing
conditions for seniors in those communities.
Special Needs Households
Amador County General Plan Housing Element
5/ 10/ 05
VI­11
U Rental/ Homebuyer’s Assistance
As indicated in the A12AA’s needs assessment, many seniors are overpaying for
housing. The county, in cooperation with the county’s senior­support
organizations
should pursue funding ( See Appendix A and Goals, Policies and Implementation
Programs, Section X) which provides rental support for low and very low income
households. Similarly, funding should be sought for home­buyer
assistance
programs. Redevelopment could provide additional funds to supplement grants and
loans to support renters and homebuyers in meeting their housing needs.
U Appoint the Amador County Commission on Aging or Similar Organization to
Provide Recommendations to the County for Transportation
Schedules/ Routes/ Alternatives for Senior Transportation
Appoint a senior­support
agency and establish a time­line
for gathering input from
seniors and providing the Amador County Board of Supervisors and Amador County
Transportation Commission with a recommended strategy for addressing senior
public transportation needs. Input should address the potential benefits and costs of
instituting dial­a­ride,
establishing a volunteer driver program, addition of weekend
fixed routes, encouraging local businesses to provide grocery and prescription
delivery services, and other alternatives.
U Market program availability through existing county senior­support
organizations and senior centers
The availability of rental and home­buyer
assistance funds for seniors should be
“ advertised” at the county’s senior centers and through the county’s senior support
organizations. Similarly, input on proposed routes/ schedules/ alternatives for public
transportation for seniors should be designed with input from senior centers and
through the county’s senior support organizations.
Special Needs Households
Amador County